jeudi 10 octobre 2013

Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others?

1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

In a Theological and a Historical sense, yes, Genesis is basis for the whole Bible. It sets the scene.

However, if you want to know what is the basis for believing the Bible true, there are other parts that are easier to verify, unless you mean the Flood as such. Like Exodus, like victory over Sennacherib, most notably the Life, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Indeed, Genesis and Gospel stand together so that if either were false, the other would be false also. Christ says that "God created them man and woman from the beginning of Creation" ... if the timeline of evolutionists were true, this would be in an obvious sense false and discredit the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand at the end of Genesis, when blessing the son Judah, Jacob gives a timelimit meaning the Messiah must already have come. "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah ... until the hero cometh, and the Nations shall fall unto him."

How so?

Judea lost its sovereignty, and especially its power to execute death penalties, after Herod the Great died. The Jews had not lost sovereignty as much as that during the Babylonian Captivity. Or immediately after. Jews that deny that Jesus is the real Messiah often say the prophecy refers to Cyrus of Persia. But during that period Daniel defends a woman falsely accused of adultery so she is not stoned. Susannah, by name (Daniel ch. 13). Meaning Jews could stone offenders against the Mosaic law. Also, many nations never came under Persia, such as Rome. Nearly all have come under Christ and all but the very smallest have had at least Christian minorities. And in the Persian epoch there is first a law against Jews, then another one that gives them right to slay attackers. By contrast, "Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; ..." (John 18:31) meaning the sceptre had departed from Judah by then. Meaning that Messiah must already have come.

In that sense, Gospel cannot be true if Genesis is false, but also Genesis cannot be true if Gospel is false.

Each of them has its own supporting evidence from outside that circle.

If you want the victory over Sennacherib, denied by that despot, we know another account from Herodotus in which mice chew the bowstrings to pieces. Meaning of course that the real explanation was not known to Herodotus, since God sending an angel of death is much less surprising than mice doing that stuff. Supernatural things can be supernatural, like God sending angels, but natural things, like mice, are not supposed to do very weird and unnatural things, like chew up exactly just the bowstrings of a whole army. And if neither happened, Assyrians would have won (as Sennacherib boasted) and there would not have been any tale of mice and bowstrings. (C. S. Lewis said "mice don't behave that way", hat tip!)

If you want the Exodus, do not take the version in which Hebrews are Hyksos and real Moses either Ahmoses or Thutmoses. Rather, Exodus happened before Hyksos invasion and the drowning of Pharao's army was helping the Hyksos a lot at the invasion. You can consider Hyksos as possibly equal to Amalekites. (Hat tip to a Creationist and Egyptologist living currently in France and to another one called David Down).*

If you want the Genesis, at least there is pretty extensive evidence for the Flood.

And if you want the Gospel, which is the most important, there is the consideration "what happened to the body?" (Hat tip to Dale and Elaine Rhooton, Can We Know?).

Indeed so much that even if Gospel logically cannot be true unless Genesis is true, Gospel can be believed as true by somone not concluding that so is Genesis. I had been an evolutionist as a child and after becoming a Christian at age nine, I spent about a year trying to fit Evolutionism together with what Christ believed (and knew as God) of Genesis. I did not become a Creationist until that failed. Even later I was still a little Evolution geek who was interested in Evolutionistic explanations (like for language)** even as an unbeliever in that non-Christian worldview.

Now, here is a general discussion on how to deal with claims about the supernatural in the sources:

History vs Hume (part one of four, see links within)

Here is a discussion of contemporary evidence outside Bible:

The Question of Contemporary Evidence

Here is against a claim that St Paul was bluffing when he said five hundred "most of whom are still alive" had seen Christ risen:

What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!

But we would not have the Gospel without the Church, so my next question is whether the Apostolic Church remained intact as the Catholic Church. This will get us to a new blog, one which I made against outrageous Protestant claims about Church History.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre - Paris X
University Library
St. Francis Borgia, S. J.

* CMI : David Down : Searching for Moses

I have linked to David Brown earlier:

Appendix A on : So, Dionysus was a Copy of Moses, may One Presume?

** You may have heard of a theory in which the first articulated sound and also first word was a bilabial f, a targetted breathing out of air on embers in fire, and hence used also for "fire", "light a fire", "warmth", "human ingenuity", "life" and a few more things. Funny if this were true why today phonemes have typically no significance in themselmves, but each only in combination with others - in a purely arbitrary way! Language as we know it and as distinguished from animal communications by "double articulation" (message articulated into morphemes meaningful in themselves through a system of arbitrary morphosyntax - or system which says what says what about what - and each morpheme except the shortest articulated into sounds or phonetic traits meaningless in themselves unless combined) is a very good argument against evolution and for Genesis (or other supernatural accounts of man's origin).

2 commentaires:

  1. What Libby Anne may have been referring to as "Genesis foundation of Bible" may have been meant quite other than "best proven part fo Bible that proves all the rest". It may have meant what Lita Cosner very aptly says:

    If the only place creation, the fall, and the flood were important was in the beginning part of Genesis, you might be able to make that argument. But it is literally all over Scripture. The Old Testament uses creation, the fall, and the Flood in all sorts of places, and it even builds a full theology of Yahweh based on His creative work. The New Testament follows the OT’s example. When Jesus wants to tell the disciples what His coming is going to be like, He says, “Look at what Noah’s Flood was like! It came so suddenly that no one expected it.” When Paul wants to explain how Jesus’ death saves us, he says, “You know how Adam’s sin condemned everyone after him? Just like that—Jesus’ death results in life for everyone who believes!” When God gives John a vision of the New Jerusalem, it is filled with Edenic imagery. This isn’t accidental, it’s not peripheral; it’s intentional, all the way through Scripture, and the only way it works is if the first chapters of Genesis were history.

    Is creation apologetics a problem?
    Feedback with answer by Lita Cosner, January 5 2014

  2. Which is kind of what I meant by saying (q in title, a in essay above):

    Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? In a Theological and a Historical sense, yes, Genesis is basis for the whole Bible. It sets the scene.