Why Genesis is Literal and not symbolic

This isn’t a subject that is hard to figure out.  Anyone with any knowledge of the Hebrew/Aramic language can figure it out that Genesis the first 2 chapters are real literal events.

You can find support if you are skeptical of Genesis being real by just doing some research.  Check Genesis against the historicity of the Bible.  That’s one way to boost your confidence on weather the Bible can be used as a historical reference.  It’s indeed a fact mentioned by archaeologist who were very skeptical.  For example I’ll give you a quote that is said about the bible being verified as a historical document.

Archaeologist William F. Albright says, “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today” (Albright, 29).

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
Notice what is said about the NT of the Bible.  How about this,
Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (Sherwin-White, 189)

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
Can there be any denial, and these are just a sample of comments made about what people love to call that the bible is just a myth, or full of stories, but when you show them things like this, then people have changed their position in my experience but then they try to point to talking donkeys or supernatural events to try to say the bible is fiction.
If it can be shown that the bible is a historical document why would Genesis not be historical.
And last I’ll address the actual language used in the Genesis text.  For example, the hebrew word “yom” is used in the Genesis text.  Here are a few examples of it’s use in the text that so many people have attempted to say it’s just symbolic without showing the breakdown of the text isn’t even written in symbolic language was is written in a historical fashion.  A few examples are:

 “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 .”

“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.”

“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.”

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
So if anyone is serious and unbias they would find that the Genesis text isn’t allegorical language or symbolic like what Jesus says about forgiving someone as some have improperly tried to do without even showing what type of language is used in Genesis vs the Language used in Matthew on Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness.


7 Responses to “Why Genesis is Literal and not symbolic”

  1. It is interesting that you quote from both Geisler and Albright in defense of a young earth, because they are both old-earth creationists. A thoroughly Biblical case can be made for an old earth (see http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml), and the “scientific” arguments for a young earth don’t hold up to close inspection.

  2. If you notice I used the points Geisler used for Genesis being a literal historical account. Geisler doesn’t disagree with the 7 days of creation being in a literal 7 days.

    And yes I know Geisler believes in millions of years so does the scientist Hugh Ross, but that doesn’t mean I agree with them. Who said just because I use some of his material that this somehow how means he doesn’t make valid points else where.

    And it’s your opinion that it doesn’t hold up. I don’t feel that the arguments by evolutionist and geologist and paleotologist, etc don’t hold up. We are all looking at the same evidence and there is things that give the appearance of old age and things that do not.

    What I argue is let the people decide and if they come away believing in millions thier choice if they come away believing in a young earth their choice and I’m ok with that.

    And I would say under close inspection old age doesn’t hold up, the only thing that can be admitted is the universe and star light and time which Humphreis wrote a book on rebutting it and if the theory holds true explains that issue. Other than that the rest is very debateable.

  3. And what makes people think that I don’t somehow believe that there are old earth creationist out there? I gave Huge Ross, and yes Geisler is one, but that doesn’t mean they are correct either.

    And that doesn’t also mean the majority is correct. If you do enough research the majority isn’t always correct either. You can get a second opinon on medical treatment for a condition for example and one expert disagrees with another expert. People just need to examine the issues for themselves and leave it at that.

  4. egoeimi3 Says:

    LOL. People can believe that some of the bible is true and some of it is not. I never have and never will have a problem with what people choose to believe.

    And wrong, I don’t and havn’t done what you are accusing yet again in a blind fasion.

    I quote both books as true where are you coming from? You don’t know me that well, that’s obviously. I don’t do what evoluitnist in most cases do sneek the premise in. No you can judge each on it’s own and archeology, for example supports both as being historically accurate. So go make your false accusations eles where.

  5. wysiwyg666 Says:

    Whatever ego.

    The point is that both the people you quoted were talking about events in the new testament. You then extrapolate that to the old testament.

    It’s like I said. The Harry Potter books mention London England. London has been confirmed to be a real place, so obviously Hogwarts is also a real place.

    Or, the Greek myths and legends accurately talked about real events like the Trojan war, so that must mean Zeus really existed on Mount Olympus.

    • egoeimi3 Says:

      Whatever wy.. stop writing on my blogs.. i’m done with your dishonest you showed on youtube. To reply to this non-sense. You don’t know what you are talking about.. Why don’t you try reading the artilce again, and learn what they are saying. When Jesus talks about Adam and Eve it applies to Genesis you nut, He is talking about the same people that Moses is talking about. Same thing, when Jesus mentions the flood, again He is talking about the Flood in Genesis.

      Why do I have to teach an evolutioist? Because evolutionist think they are now biblical scolars.

    • egoeimi3 Says:

      And like the strawman. Compare the biblical text to Harry Potter use of real places.. the difference is the writer who wrote harry potter is writing about fantasy. So you are strawmaning the biblical text to call it fantasy because it uses real places.. sorry, but Potter isn’t an acient document. Zues on the other hand and Greek writings again don’t pass what historians call the Ancient Document Rule. I suggest you stop the strawman arguments.

      Evolution on the other hand. says we came out of the oceans with very simple life (no scientific evidence for that) and then oh it suddenlty appeared, and no one knkows how, then it change to more advance creatures and got more advance until you get to us higher on the food chan. Now that soulds like fantasy!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: