The Bible reports many direct experiences of God. As we read in the OT, for example, ample, Moses came across a burning bush in the desert, and God commanded him to return to Egypt to free his people (Ex 3-4). The Angel of the Lord promised Gideon divine deliverance from Israel's enemy the Midianites (Jdg 6:11-8:32).; In Abraham's old age, and despite his having no children, the Lord promised Abraham that he and his aged wife, Sarah, would have a son through whom Abraham would m become the father of a great nation (Gn 12 and 28). In 1 and 2 Kings God appears to kings and prophets with numerous warnings and promises.
In the New Testament we read of the experiences surrounding the birth announcements of Jesus and John the Baptist (Lk 1:5-38); the transfiguration (Mt 1Z1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36); Paul's conversion while on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians (Ac 9:1-19); and Peter's decision, motivated by a vision, to take the gospel to the household of Cornelius (Ac 10). There are many other reports of this kind in the Bible-but the record does not end there. Every generation of believers has testified to the immediate presence of God in various ways.
Admittedly, in most cases, these religious experiences occurred in people who' already believed in God. The experiences often were intended to impart reliable information or divine guidance and were frequently accompanied by miraculous confirming events. On the other hand, these experiences confirmed the participants in their belief in God, led them to testify to the existence and supremacy of the Lord, and emboldened them to act on the information and guidance they received.
This raises an important question: does religious experience provide grounds for believing that God exists? It is reasonable to think so, and here's why.
A basic principle of rationality is that how things appear in our experience is good grounds for believing that that is how things are, unless there is a good a reason to think that how things appear to us is actually mistaken. If I seem to see an orange ; tree in my garden, then, in general, I have good grounds for believing there is an orange tree there. But suppose that, during the past 10 years, I've never seen an orange tree there, I did not arrange for an orange tree to be planted there, my wife now looks and says she does not see an orange tree there, and I've recently been prescribed medication known for its hallucinogenic side-effects. These considerations now make it very unlikely that I am seeing what I seem to be seeing. And thus I have no good grounds for believing an orange tree is in the garden.
While alleged religious experiences do not involve the five senses, they do correspond to perceptual experiences of things like orange trees. An entity (an object or a person) is present to the consciousness of some person. So if I seem to be directly aware of God's presence, and if there are no overriding reasons why things are not as they seem, then I have good grounds for believing that God is present and hence for believing that God exists (since God would not be present if God did not exist).
But now we must ask, would my experience be evidence for others if I reported my experience to them? Is testimony about an experience of God good grounds for believing that God exists?
A basic principle is that the testimony of an experience should be trusted unless there is at least as good a reason to think that it is mistaken. If I report to others that I saw a particular orange tree, then, in general, recipients of my testimony have good grounds for believing that I saw it and hence that that particular orange tree exists. But if I have a reputation for clowning around or telling lies, or if I have no idea what an orange tree looks like, or if recipients of my testimony have strong independent reasons for denying that there is an orange tree in the garden, then it would not be so reasonable for them to accept my testimony.
Similarly, if I report a personal experience of God, then this will be grounds for others to believe that God exists if what I report is plausible, if it is likely that my faculties are adequate for such an experience, and if I have a reputation for honesty.
In general it seems rational that, for those who have had the experience, belief in God may be grounded in an experience of God. Also, testimony about the experience may even provide grounds for belief in God for those who do not have such experiences themselves. In combination with other evidences for God's existence, direct religious experience and testimony about such an experience may provide strong motivation for believing in God. It should at least provide Motivation for exploring other evidence for God's existence.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Notable Christian Apologist: William Paley By Ted Cabal
In an era that dignified science while degrading revelation, God raised William Paley (1743-1805). Receiving his education at Cambridge in mathematics, he would go on to produce history's most influential argument from design for God's existence. Written while suffering a debilitating disease, Paley's Natural Theology compares nature's intricate design to the complexity of a watch. If a person walking in a field stumbled upon a timepiece, they would assume it had a designer even if they had never seen a watch before. How much more should those who examine the exquisite craftsmanship of objects such as the eye infer a master Craftsman.
Many believed for much of the twentieth century that David Hume and Charles Darwin had definitively demolished the argument philosophically and scientifically. But Paley's argument is making a comeback. Mathematician/philosopher William Dembski has demonstrated recently that design inferences of the watch/Watchmaker sort can legitimately be philosophically constructed. And biologist Michael Behe presented a powerful contemporary scientific version of the argument.
Paley also produced A View of the Evidences of Christianity which he defended the veracity of biblical miracles. Unlike miracle claims from other sources, the stellar character of Christ and the willingness of the apostles to die for their message vouchsafe biblical miracles. Paley, in the mainstream of Christian apologetic tradition, also pointed to fulfilled prophecy as reason to trust the Bible.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible
Many believed for much of the twentieth century that David Hume and Charles Darwin had definitively demolished the argument philosophically and scientifically. But Paley's argument is making a comeback. Mathematician/philosopher William Dembski has demonstrated recently that design inferences of the watch/Watchmaker sort can legitimately be philosophically constructed. And biologist Michael Behe presented a powerful contemporary scientific version of the argument.
Paley also produced A View of the Evidences of Christianity which he defended the veracity of biblical miracles. Unlike miracle claims from other sources, the stellar character of Christ and the willingness of the apostles to die for their message vouchsafe biblical miracles. Paley, in the mainstream of Christian apologetic tradition, also pointed to fulfilled prophecy as reason to trust the Bible.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible
Does the Bible Provide Guidance Regarding Genetic Engineering? By Scott B. Rae.
Since human beings weren't able to manipulate the genetic code when the Bible was written, it doesn't directly address genetic engineering. It does, however, give general principles regarding medical technology that apply to genetic technologies.
Humans are created in God's image and likeness, and so He charges them to exercise dominion over His creation (Gn 1:27-28). Their mandate? To subdue and kindly master the earth, unlocking its resources to benefit themselves and their successors-in a sense continuing the spirit of creation by being subordinate "creators" with God in unlocking the secrets of the creation to benefit humankind.
The command to subdue the earth takes on added complexity after the entrance of sin into the world in Genesis 3. Exercising dominion over creation after the fall now involves dealing with sin's effects in the world. Dominion includes working toward improving the creation or reversing the effects of the entrance of sin. The most important of sin's effects is the reality of death (Gn 3:2-3), which is universal in its scope (Rm 5:12). That is, after the fall, death, decay, and deterioration face every person. Thus dominion over creation largely involves dealing with death and ' disease (disease being the cause of death in most cases), which can alleviate the harshness of life after the fall, even genetic disease. In order to exercise dominion God (through general revelation) provided human beings with resources necessary for accomplishing that task. That ingenuity and wisdom come from God as His "common grace" gifts to humans (Is 28:23-29).
The knowledge and skill necessary to develop the kinds of technologies that enable humankind to subdue the creation are part of God's general revelation. Humans didn't acquire the ingenuity and skill to develop sophisticated technology on their own apart from God. It's not an accident that these technologies came to be so useful in our exercise of dominion over creation. They are gifts from God. Thus technologies that generally improve the lot of humanity and specifically help reverse the effects of sin's entrance into the world are part of God's common grace. The skill and expertise needed to bring about these creation-subduing technologies come ultimately from God, being His good gifts to humans in harnessing creation.
This is particularly the case when it comes to medical technology. Since death is one of the primary consequences of the entrance of sin into the world, and disease is the primary cause of death and physical deterioration, medical technologies bringing cures to diseases and other afflictions are among God's most gracious gifts to the human race.
Medical technology can be part of God's common grace to assist humans in fulfilling their role in exercising loving dominion. The more controversial technology of genetic engineering should be used only for therapeutic reasons (repairing damage), in keeping with the creation mandate. It should not be used for eugenic reasons (creating a kind of super race, as Hitler and the Nazis hoped to do, considering other races inferior to the so-called Aryans). C. S. Lewis warned that if "the dreams of some scientific planners are realized" by using their power to make their descendants into what they please, then their "conquest of Nature ... means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men."
Humans are created in God's image and likeness, and so He charges them to exercise dominion over His creation (Gn 1:27-28). Their mandate? To subdue and kindly master the earth, unlocking its resources to benefit themselves and their successors-in a sense continuing the spirit of creation by being subordinate "creators" with God in unlocking the secrets of the creation to benefit humankind.
The command to subdue the earth takes on added complexity after the entrance of sin into the world in Genesis 3. Exercising dominion over creation after the fall now involves dealing with sin's effects in the world. Dominion includes working toward improving the creation or reversing the effects of the entrance of sin. The most important of sin's effects is the reality of death (Gn 3:2-3), which is universal in its scope (Rm 5:12). That is, after the fall, death, decay, and deterioration face every person. Thus dominion over creation largely involves dealing with death and ' disease (disease being the cause of death in most cases), which can alleviate the harshness of life after the fall, even genetic disease. In order to exercise dominion God (through general revelation) provided human beings with resources necessary for accomplishing that task. That ingenuity and wisdom come from God as His "common grace" gifts to humans (Is 28:23-29).
The knowledge and skill necessary to develop the kinds of technologies that enable humankind to subdue the creation are part of God's general revelation. Humans didn't acquire the ingenuity and skill to develop sophisticated technology on their own apart from God. It's not an accident that these technologies came to be so useful in our exercise of dominion over creation. They are gifts from God. Thus technologies that generally improve the lot of humanity and specifically help reverse the effects of sin's entrance into the world are part of God's common grace. The skill and expertise needed to bring about these creation-subduing technologies come ultimately from God, being His good gifts to humans in harnessing creation.
This is particularly the case when it comes to medical technology. Since death is one of the primary consequences of the entrance of sin into the world, and disease is the primary cause of death and physical deterioration, medical technologies bringing cures to diseases and other afflictions are among God's most gracious gifts to the human race.
Medical technology can be part of God's common grace to assist humans in fulfilling their role in exercising loving dominion. The more controversial technology of genetic engineering should be used only for therapeutic reasons (repairing damage), in keeping with the creation mandate. It should not be used for eugenic reasons (creating a kind of super race, as Hitler and the Nazis hoped to do, considering other races inferior to the so-called Aryans). C. S. Lewis warned that if "the dreams of some scientific planners are realized" by using their power to make their descendants into what they please, then their "conquest of Nature ... means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men."
Is Mormonism Compatible with the Bible? By Chad Owen Brand
Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claimed he was restoring the genuine church to the earth, a church absent since the first century. But is Mormonism truly Christian?
Students who ask such questions often differentiate among denominations, sects, cults, and world religions. Denominations are movements that differ on doctrinal issues but hold to a common core of beliefs about God, Christ, and the Scriptures. They see God as Trinitarian, Christ as unique in His human-divine person, and the Scriptures as the authoritative text passed down from the prophets and apostles. Sects agree with the denominations on these matters, but they often have some characteristic that places them on the fringe of Christianity, such as the radical separatism of the Amish. Cults are connected to Christianity in that they employ Christian Scripture and appeal to Jesus, but they also differ from the traditional faith in certain core areas. They may deny or reinterpret the Trinity. They may have novel views about Christ. They may reject part of the Christian Scripture, add new texts to it, or claim to have an infallible interpretation that replaces traditional doctrine with a new approach. World religions are those historic traditions that include the Christian religion as well as others, such as Islam and Hinduism.
Is Mormonism Christian? If the question asks only whether Mormonism is connected to Christianity in some sense, the answer would be "Yes." But that is not enough. Religions such as Baha'i claim some connection to Christianity, and Muslims believe in the second coming of Jesus. In order for a faith to be Christian it must pass both the doctrinal test and the experiential test. Doctrinally it must be orthodox on the key issues outlined above, and experientially it must see salvation as a faith encounter with Christ alone as the pathway to being right with God. How does Mormonism stack up?
Mormonism is neither monotheistic nor, technically, Trinitarian. In one of the Mormon scriptures, The Pearl of Great Price, we are told that the world was fashioned "by the Gods." In his famous King Follett sermon, Joseph Smith stated that God was once as we are and that we may become as He is-a God. Mormonism teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, but it denies the historic Christian view on the Trinity. Mormon scholar Robert Millet has written that the Trinity is comprised of "Three Beings." Mormonism is not Trinitarian but tritheist. Mormon theology teaches that Jesus is an incarnation of Elohim, conceived as the literal son of God. But He is not the unique incarnation, since we also can be incarnations of the Father. Jesus is important to the whole of Mormon theology but in a different way than for traditional Christians. In Mormonism we are not saved by the atoning work of Christ but by obedience to Mormon principles. Mormons follow the Bible as Scripture, but they have placed three other texts alongside the Bible-The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. It is in the last two books in particular that the novel Mormon doctrines can be found.
Because of these departures from standard Christian teachings, Mormonism falls outside orthodox Christianity.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Students who ask such questions often differentiate among denominations, sects, cults, and world religions. Denominations are movements that differ on doctrinal issues but hold to a common core of beliefs about God, Christ, and the Scriptures. They see God as Trinitarian, Christ as unique in His human-divine person, and the Scriptures as the authoritative text passed down from the prophets and apostles. Sects agree with the denominations on these matters, but they often have some characteristic that places them on the fringe of Christianity, such as the radical separatism of the Amish. Cults are connected to Christianity in that they employ Christian Scripture and appeal to Jesus, but they also differ from the traditional faith in certain core areas. They may deny or reinterpret the Trinity. They may have novel views about Christ. They may reject part of the Christian Scripture, add new texts to it, or claim to have an infallible interpretation that replaces traditional doctrine with a new approach. World religions are those historic traditions that include the Christian religion as well as others, such as Islam and Hinduism.
Is Mormonism Christian? If the question asks only whether Mormonism is connected to Christianity in some sense, the answer would be "Yes." But that is not enough. Religions such as Baha'i claim some connection to Christianity, and Muslims believe in the second coming of Jesus. In order for a faith to be Christian it must pass both the doctrinal test and the experiential test. Doctrinally it must be orthodox on the key issues outlined above, and experientially it must see salvation as a faith encounter with Christ alone as the pathway to being right with God. How does Mormonism stack up?
Mormonism is neither monotheistic nor, technically, Trinitarian. In one of the Mormon scriptures, The Pearl of Great Price, we are told that the world was fashioned "by the Gods." In his famous King Follett sermon, Joseph Smith stated that God was once as we are and that we may become as He is-a God. Mormonism teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, but it denies the historic Christian view on the Trinity. Mormon scholar Robert Millet has written that the Trinity is comprised of "Three Beings." Mormonism is not Trinitarian but tritheist. Mormon theology teaches that Jesus is an incarnation of Elohim, conceived as the literal son of God. But He is not the unique incarnation, since we also can be incarnations of the Father. Jesus is important to the whole of Mormon theology but in a different way than for traditional Christians. In Mormonism we are not saved by the atoning work of Christ but by obedience to Mormon principles. Mormons follow the Bible as Scripture, but they have placed three other texts alongside the Bible-The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. It is in the last two books in particular that the novel Mormon doctrines can be found.
Because of these departures from standard Christian teachings, Mormonism falls outside orthodox Christianity.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Does the Old Testament Teach Salvation by Works? By E. Ray Clendenen
According to Genesis 15:6, Abram did not buy righteousness with his faith. Rather, God gave Abram righteousness; which means right standing or acceptability before God. The biblical message is clear and consistent in both testaments: the curse of condemnation and death that rests on everyone because of Adam's sin (Rm 5:121) cannot be removed and exchanged for righteousness through any amount of good deeds that one might do. The exchange can be effected only by God as a free act of His grace in response to a person's faith (Hab 2:4; Rm 1:16-17; 4:1-25; GI 3:6-9).
What matters in this exchange is not the quality or degree of faith but rather God's grace; faith is not a means to earn acceptance with God. The apostle Paul considered Abraham a model of transforming faith even though the content of Abraham's faith was different from Paul's. Abraham simply trusted God and His promise to give him a son and then other descendants. Presumably Abraham would have supplemented God's promise here with that of Genesis 12:1-3, trusting that his offspring would be vast not only in number but also in significance, bringing blessing to the world. The content of Abraham’s faith was not inconsistent with that of Paul, only less specific. Also, Abraham believed what God would do and Paul believed what God had done.
Finally the New Testament explains that faith itself cannot purchase or serve as the foundation for acceptance with God. Only the cross of Christ can purchase our salvation. But since the eternal and timeless God is sovereign over events, He could apply the work of Christ to Old Testament believers in response to their faith, even though they had no specific knowledge of Christ.
What matters in this exchange is not the quality or degree of faith but rather God's grace; faith is not a means to earn acceptance with God. The apostle Paul considered Abraham a model of transforming faith even though the content of Abraham's faith was different from Paul's. Abraham simply trusted God and His promise to give him a son and then other descendants. Presumably Abraham would have supplemented God's promise here with that of Genesis 12:1-3, trusting that his offspring would be vast not only in number but also in significance, bringing blessing to the world. The content of Abraham’s faith was not inconsistent with that of Paul, only less specific. Also, Abraham believed what God would do and Paul believed what God had done.
Finally the New Testament explains that faith itself cannot purchase or serve as the foundation for acceptance with God. Only the cross of Christ can purchase our salvation. But since the eternal and timeless God is sovereign over events, He could apply the work of Christ to Old Testament believers in response to their faith, even though they had no specific knowledge of Christ.
Did Those Places Really Exist? By E. Ray Clendenen
The ancient Egyptian equivalent of a "voodoo doll" was to write one's enemy's name on a clay statue or pottery vessel and then smash the pot while pronouncing a curse. Archaeologists have uncovered hundreds of such, pottery pieces, called "execration texts." Dating about the time of Joseph (nineteenth-eighteenth century B.C., Egyptian twelfth dynasty), they contain the names of many towns in Palestine and their rulers considered at the time to be enemies of the Egyptian state. Many of these are towns mentioned in the Bible, which underlines the authenticity of the biblical account. They also verify that cities were ruled at the time by "kings." Some of the towns identified are Acco (Jdg 1:31), Aphek (Jos 12:18), Achshaph (Jos 11:1), Ashkelon (Jos 13:3), Beth-shean (Jos 17:11,16), Beth-shemesh (Jos 15:10), Bozrah (Gn 36:33), Damascus (Gn 14:15; 15:2), Ekron (Jos 13:3), Laish (Jdg 18:29), Midian2:15-16}, Migdol (Ex 14:2; Nm 33:7), Rehob (Nm 13:21; Jos 19:28,30), Shechem (Gn 12:6; 33:18; 37:12-14), Byblos, and Jerusalem (Jos 10:1).
Although not referring to the patriarch of Israel, the name Aburahana as an, Egyptian transcription of a Semitic name is also found in these texts (m and n often interchanged in such transcriptions)
The Hebrew word chanikim, rendered “trained,” found in the Bible only in Genesis 14:14, is also found in execration texts, supporting the credibility of the Genesis 14 account.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible
Although not referring to the patriarch of Israel, the name Aburahana as an, Egyptian transcription of a Semitic name is also found in these texts (m and n often interchanged in such transcriptions)
The Hebrew word chanikim, rendered “trained,” found in the Bible only in Genesis 14:14, is also found in execration texts, supporting the credibility of the Genesis 14 account.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible
Are the Biblical Genealogies Reliable? By Kenneth A. Mathews
Biblical genealogies must be understood in the context of the ancient Near - East. Typically, genealogies expressed more than family descent. They reflected political and socio-religious realities among people groups. For example, "Salma fathered Bethlehem" (1 Ch 2:51) describes the founder of the village Bethlehem. Therefore the genealogies were fluid, showing differences due to changing political and social realities.
The adoption of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, by Jacob created a new way of interpreting the 12-tribe configuration (Gn 48:5). "Joseph" appears in the blessing of Jacob (Gn 49:22-26), but the blessing of Moses counts 12 tribes by deleting Simeon and dividing the house of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh (Dt 33:17). Thus, as we see from this example, the contents of genealogies were selective and not intended to be exhaustive and precise.
Shortening genealogies by omitting names was commonplace. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus exhibits a pattern in which three sets of 14 generations are achieved (Mt 1:17). The number 14 was desirable because of the importance attributed to the symbolic meaning of seven ("complete, perfect"). Thus "Joram fathered Uzziah" (Mt 1:8) omits three generations (2 Ch 21:4-26:33) so as to accomplish the desired number (cp. Ezr 7:1-5 with 1 Ch 6).
From this example we discover another unexpected feature in biblical genealogies. Genetic terms, such as "son of" and "father," were flexible in meaning, sometimes indicating a "descendant" and "grandfather or forefather." The word "daughter," for example, could mean a subordinate village affiliated with a nearby city and thus be translated "surrounding settlements" (Jdg 1:27, NIV).
One technique in the ancient world for legitimizing a new king was the concoction of a fictional ancestry. Moreover, scholars often assume that persons named in genealogies are metaphors for tribes and actually have no familial connection. The charge of fiction has been leveled against the genealogies of the 12 tribes of Israel as descended from the one person Jacob (e.g., Gn 46:8-27; Nm 1:20-43; 1 Ch 2:1-2).
The argument that the term "sons of Jacob" reflects only an evolving social reality and not a reliable domestic one is an unnecessary assumption that contradicts the plain meaning of the biblical witness. The biblical account of the patriarchs reveals a family story primarily and a national one secondarily. Also, since genealogies impacted domestic, legal, and religious matters of importance, reliable genealogical records and censuses were fastidiously maintained (Nm 1:45; Ru 4:10; 1 Ch 4:33; 9:1; Neh 7:5; see Nm 27:1-11; Ezr 2:62).
A special problem is the long life spans in Genesis 5:1-32. In that passage, for example, Adam is said to have lived to be 930 years old.
The Sumerian King List presents a list of the reigns of kings and includes a reference to a great flood. The King List claims fantastic numbers, the longest reign at 72,000 years. After the flood the regal years diminish. Despite its fantastic numbers, however, the King List includes historical individuals, not just legendary ones.
Both Genesis and the Sumerian King List remember a time in the ancient past when people lived for long periods. The life spans before Noah's flood were longer and afterward gradually decreased. The long lives of the patriarchs, such as Adam - and Noah, shrink to moderate figures when compared to the Sumerian King List. A significant difference is that Adam's genealogy is not for political purposes but instead shows that the descending ages of humanity were due to a moral factor when God judged a corrupt humanity (Gn 6:1-8).
Although the years are reliable, this genealogy cannot be used to reconstruct the age of the earth. Genesis does not present genealogies for establishing absolute chronology (see 1 Kg 6:1). Also, Genesis 5 does not possess a complete list. Genesis 5 and 11 exhibit 10-name genealogies that consist of stereotypical patterns. The two genealogies are also linear, meaning that they include only one descendant per generation (segmented genealogies have more; see Gn 10:1-32). Since genealogies may telescope generations (see above), and since Genesis 5 is highly stylized, it is likely an "open" (selective) genealogy that spans many generations.
The adoption of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, by Jacob created a new way of interpreting the 12-tribe configuration (Gn 48:5). "Joseph" appears in the blessing of Jacob (Gn 49:22-26), but the blessing of Moses counts 12 tribes by deleting Simeon and dividing the house of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh (Dt 33:17). Thus, as we see from this example, the contents of genealogies were selective and not intended to be exhaustive and precise.
Shortening genealogies by omitting names was commonplace. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus exhibits a pattern in which three sets of 14 generations are achieved (Mt 1:17). The number 14 was desirable because of the importance attributed to the symbolic meaning of seven ("complete, perfect"). Thus "Joram fathered Uzziah" (Mt 1:8) omits three generations (2 Ch 21:4-26:33) so as to accomplish the desired number (cp. Ezr 7:1-5 with 1 Ch 6).
From this example we discover another unexpected feature in biblical genealogies. Genetic terms, such as "son of" and "father," were flexible in meaning, sometimes indicating a "descendant" and "grandfather or forefather." The word "daughter," for example, could mean a subordinate village affiliated with a nearby city and thus be translated "surrounding settlements" (Jdg 1:27, NIV).
One technique in the ancient world for legitimizing a new king was the concoction of a fictional ancestry. Moreover, scholars often assume that persons named in genealogies are metaphors for tribes and actually have no familial connection. The charge of fiction has been leveled against the genealogies of the 12 tribes of Israel as descended from the one person Jacob (e.g., Gn 46:8-27; Nm 1:20-43; 1 Ch 2:1-2).
The argument that the term "sons of Jacob" reflects only an evolving social reality and not a reliable domestic one is an unnecessary assumption that contradicts the plain meaning of the biblical witness. The biblical account of the patriarchs reveals a family story primarily and a national one secondarily. Also, since genealogies impacted domestic, legal, and religious matters of importance, reliable genealogical records and censuses were fastidiously maintained (Nm 1:45; Ru 4:10; 1 Ch 4:33; 9:1; Neh 7:5; see Nm 27:1-11; Ezr 2:62).
A special problem is the long life spans in Genesis 5:1-32. In that passage, for example, Adam is said to have lived to be 930 years old.
The Sumerian King List presents a list of the reigns of kings and includes a reference to a great flood. The King List claims fantastic numbers, the longest reign at 72,000 years. After the flood the regal years diminish. Despite its fantastic numbers, however, the King List includes historical individuals, not just legendary ones.
Both Genesis and the Sumerian King List remember a time in the ancient past when people lived for long periods. The life spans before Noah's flood were longer and afterward gradually decreased. The long lives of the patriarchs, such as Adam - and Noah, shrink to moderate figures when compared to the Sumerian King List. A significant difference is that Adam's genealogy is not for political purposes but instead shows that the descending ages of humanity were due to a moral factor when God judged a corrupt humanity (Gn 6:1-8).
Although the years are reliable, this genealogy cannot be used to reconstruct the age of the earth. Genesis does not present genealogies for establishing absolute chronology (see 1 Kg 6:1). Also, Genesis 5 does not possess a complete list. Genesis 5 and 11 exhibit 10-name genealogies that consist of stereotypical patterns. The two genealogies are also linear, meaning that they include only one descendant per generation (segmented genealogies have more; see Gn 10:1-32). Since genealogies may telescope generations (see above), and since Genesis 5 is highly stylized, it is likely an "open" (selective) genealogy that spans many generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)