We know that Genesis is actual history through archaeology and other historical records, and nothing in it or the rest of the Bible has been controverted. There have been some illogical criticisms such as, "The Hittite Empire never existed because archaeologists have not found evidence for them" (a type of argument from silence), but that was refuted. Interestingly, mockers occasionally use debunked criticisms today. The opening chapters of Genesis are not subject to archaeology, but they are historical as well.
I'll allow that the creation and the Flood are miraculous events, yet they are written as history. (Scoffers reject miracles out of hand because naturalism; they presuppose their own interpretations.) There are professing Christians and other religious folks who reject the plain reading of the creation account because they elevate atheistic interpretations of modern science philosophies into the magisterial position above Scripture.
To claim that modern science indicates long ages and evolution yet say they believe in the miracles and Resurrection of Jesus is self-contradictory. Why suddenly believe those and reject creation and the Flood — which are clearly taught throughout the Bible, including by Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others. It's like changing horses in midstream, and is inconsistent. Some of these owlhoots may even be accredited linguists, but they put their own assumptions first and let the exceptions become the rule in pretending that the early chapters of Genesis are not historical.
 | |
|
To claim that modern science indicates long ages and evolution yet say they believe in the miracles and Resurrection of Jesus is self-contradictory. Why suddenly believe those and reject creation and the Flood — which are clearly taught throughout the Bible, including by Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others. It's like changing horses in midstream, and is inconsistent. Some of these owlhoots may even be accredited linguists, but they put their own assumptions first and let the exceptions become the rule in pretending that the early chapters of Genesis are not historical.
Steve R. asks us how to answer a Bible translator who tries to avoid the clear teaching that Genesis is historical narrative. We first ask the motivation for this, second, point out that we should never allow rare exceptions to overrule the general case, and third, the two-fold reason why Genesis should be interpreted as historical narrative whereas the translator addressed only one.To read the rest, click on "Yes, Genesis really is historical narrative". You may also like a related article, "Could thorns have existed outside of Eden, and what about the Framework Hypothesis?"