It is fair to ask the question, “How did the writer intend his audience to read the content?” Genesis is written as history, and is not poetic like Psalms. The writer intended his audience to see the contents of his writings as having actually happened. The form of writing is distinctly different from Psalms, in which there are many allegorical and metaphorical components. It has become a recent fad for some scholars to reinterpret the writings of Genesis based on Egyptian cosmology or the perceived framework parallels. But what did the writer of Genesis intend his audience to understand? Hebrew scholars are nearly unanimous in their view that the writer intended his audience to see his writing as a historical account in which God created the universe in six literal days.
Should one erroneously claim “The first 11 chapters of Genesis are mythological“, I would ask them:
- What contextual clues make you think that the first 11 chapters are mythological and the rest of Genesis is historical?
- Why do you arbitrarily choose to assign mythological genre to the first 11 chapters when it is written with in same style as the rest of Genesis?
- Which of the Christian doctrines in the first 11 chapters now have no basis because you choose mythology for Genesis?
- God is the Creator
- God created a good creation that was frustrated in corruption by man’s sin
- Marriage between one man and one woman
- The curse of sin is death, suffering, and corruption
- The promise of redemption from the curse
- Blood lineage of Jesus to Adam/Eve so that Jesus could be a kinsman redeemer of all mankind
- God’s covenant never to flood the earth again
- Making of the nations at Babel
Pingback: Creation Manifesto | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Why Old Earthism Divides | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Review – A Matter of Days – Chapter 6 | ApoloJedi