Showing posts with label Roots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roots. Show all posts

Monday, April 30, 2012

In Defense of Genesis

________________________________________


All Scripture is given by inspiration of God... (2 Timothy 3:16)

Genesis is a book that draws fire (as one might expect) from atheists and evolutionists; but unexpectedly, it also draws “friendly fire” from the Christian camp.  The atheists and evolutionists (typically one and the same) are, for all practical purposes, a lost cause.  They reject Genesis because they choose to; no amount of “evidence” will change their minds.  They simply do not want to believe; but the Christian compromise on Genesis is troubling.  This is the battle ground that creationists must conquer.

Although the term “compromiser” carries a negative connotation, I choose to use that term to identify Christians who will not accept the message of Genesis literally.  I do not mean to imply that these compromisers are unsaved or that they purposefully want to discredit God’s word; but in attempting make God’s Word more palatable to an unbelieving world, and to deflect the fiery missiles hurled against the book of Genesis as being unscientific, they unwittingly diminish the power of God to perform the mighty acts that Genesis describes.

Compromisers attempt to soften the impact of Genesis by claiming that it is only an allegory written to acknowledge God as Creator.  They will claim that the book is poetry, and that it is not intended to be historically or scientifically accurate.  The purpose of Genesis, they say, is to teach “who” created, but not “how” things were created.  The “how” can only be answered by science, or so they have been told, and so they say.

As for the claim that Genesis is allegory or poetry, expert scholars in Old Testament and Hebrew will attest to the fact that Genesis is written in narrative form, and as such it attempts to present these acts as facts.  Dr. John Morris wrote in an article entitled “Does Genesis Address the Time of Creation, or just the Fact of Creation?”  In it he emphasizes this point:

Hypothetically, consider a person fluent in Biblical languages who knows nothing of either Scripture or the various claims regarding the age of things, but who can read, carefully analyze, and understand a written document. Given the Bible for the first time, such a reader would certainly understand Genesis 1-11 to teach that creation occurred only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions, and he would cite several reasons.

He would note that the word "day" (Hebrew, yom) in Genesis 1 is best understood as a literal day (either a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of a day). While this common word can mean an indefinite time period, it almost always means a literal day and is so defined the first time it is used in Genesis 1:4-5.  Furthermore, it always means a literal day when modified by a number (i.e., 2nd day) or evening and/or morning, as it is in Genesis 1.  To cap it off, it always means a literal day when used in the plural form (i.e., six days of creation, Exodus 20:11).

Next, he would note the narrative character of those early chapters. They are telling a story, and there is no indication that it is figurative. He would find the poetic portions are no less "historic" than the prose portions. It all appears to be chronological, with each event followed by another.[1]

So the argument that Genesis cannot be taken literally because it is allegorical is based on a false premise.  In fact, even atheists would defend against that point.

In regard to the historical and scientific accuracy of Genesis, one only need look at the rest of the Bible for support.  If Genesis is not historically and scientifically accurate, then how can the rest of the Bible be trusted?  In the first place, God vouches for the integrity of His Word, which happens to include Genesis:  Psalm 119:89, 152, 160; Psalm148:4-6; Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:25, etc.  Jesus cited Genesis as factual (Matthew19:4-6; Luke 17:26).  If the events recorded in Genesis are merely poetic allegory, then the deity of Christ is severely compromised because He presented it as historical fact.  Other writers of both the Old and New Testaments also regarded the Genesis account as fact.  To devalue the historical accuracy of Genesis is to cast doubt upon the whole of Scripture.

The Bible, however, has in all areas of scrutiny been proven true.  Modern archeologists use the Bible to locate ancient historical sites.  Even in those areas where the Bible was thought to be in error, e.g., the existence of the Hittite nation, or the reign of Belshazzar as recorded in the book of Daniel, archeology has proven the Bible to be accurate.

In all the instances where the Bible speaks to science, it is consistently found to be true.  Even in the accurate calculation of Pi (π) rounded to a whole number (2 Chronicles 4:2), the Bible is accurate.  So, if the rest of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, then it is unreasonable to doubt the accuracy of Genesis.
The “how” of creation is not addressed in Genesis nor can it be answered by science.  Surely the mind of man cannot approach the knowledge and understanding of God in order to fathom the “how” of His creation.  According to Genesis, God created out of nothing, and all that He created, He spoke into existence.  As incredible as this may sound to mortal beings such as ourselves, to doubt it in the least is to deny God His omnipotence and omniscience.  This is what compromisers must understand.
 
Science has no factual answers to the “how” of creation.  They propose theories, and their theories, especially with today’s technology, are continually proven false, and so the theories have to be continuously modified.  Science demands observation.  Creation cannot be and has never been observed.  Evolution from one “kind” into another has never been observed, and there is no evidence in the fossil record that it has ever occurred.  Science demands experimentation with repeatable results.  All attempts to “evolve” something in the laboratory have failed miserably.  Science has no answers for the “how,” and our compromisers need to understand that.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).  Genesis is the Word of God.  It is true; it is historically and scientifically accurate.  To doubt its veracity, is to cast doubt on all of Scripture.  There is no room for compromise.


[1]  Morris, John D., “Does Genesis Address the Time of Creation, or just the Fact of Creation?” (https://www.icr.org/article/594/).

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Who Is My Brother?

________________________________________


But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? (Matthew 12:48)

Recently I posted an internet link to an article where “Alabama governor, Robert Bentley apologized … for proclaiming to a Baptist church audience that only Christians were his brothers and sisters and vowed to work for people of all faiths and colors.”[1] In commenting on the post, I stated, “He shouldn't apologize. He spoke the truth. For the Christian, only Christians are brothers and sisters by blood -- the blood of Christ. We shouldn't feel the need to apologize for that!” It was not long before I was attacked as a purveyor of hate, and that by a Christian brother. The critic argued that we, members of the human race, are all brothers, and to make a claim like Governor Bentley is somehow un-Christian. However, Governor Bentley was not out of line in making such a comment. In context, he was in a Baptist church, and his audience was Christian (the percentage of which only God knows). Furthermore, his statement was factual.

To a point, my critic is right. We are, after all, all descendants of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, so in a sense we all are brothers and sisters. (This, by the way, is why Christians should not be racists. God only recognizes one race – the human race. Notice how the Bible talks about nations, tongues, people and tribes, but never races. But I digress.) However, my argument is that the relationship among Christian brothers and sisters is superior to, and supersedes that of all human relationships because such a relationship is eternal; human relationships are temporal. My critic was a hard sell (in fact, a no sell), so I put myself to the task of searching “the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life” (John 5:39).

“Brother” (Hebrew: awkh) is “used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance: another, brother (-ly), kindred, like, other (Strong’s Concordance). Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions defines it: (1) brother of same parents; (2) half-brother (same father); (3) relative, kinship, same tribe; (4) each to the other (reciprocal relationship); (5) (figuratively) of resemblance. In the Greek “brother” is adelphos – brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (Strong’s Concordance). I think we all understand the rule of dictionary definitions: the first definition is the main definition of the word. Subsequent definitions are related to the main definition, albeit in a lesser sense and subject to context, inference, implication, etc. So, with this rule in mind, "brother" is a sibling who shares common parentage.

There are at least 978 occurrences of “brother” or “brethren” in the King James Bible; 630 times in the Old Testament and 348 times in the New Testament. Surely with so many occurrences there should be plentiful evidence that the word “brother” can be applied to man (humanity) in general. At the same time, we would expect to find that in most cases the main sense of the word is used (i.e., someone with biological ties).

In the study and interpretation of Scripture, there is the “Principle of First Mention” which sets the tone for how a word will be used generally throughout Scripture. In Genesis 4:2, brother is mentioned for the first time: “And she again bare his brother Abel … ” Following the principle of first mentions, we can establish that the word implies a close relationship or kinship, primarily that of biological siblings. My search confirmed that in most instances, “brother” refers to a sibling or a close relative. In Genesis 12:5 we read, “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.” One might find such a translation awkward; however there is no Hebrew word for nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, grandfather/son, grandmother/daughter, etc. Bible critics often take this as a point of contention citing various kings whose fathers were actually great-grandfathers (i.e., Daniel 5 where Nebuchadnezzar is cited as Belshazzar’s father). But the translators of the King James Bible did well to maintain a strict literal translation and challenge the reader to “study” the Scripture.

Another example can be seen in Genesis 13:8: “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.” Lot is Abram’s nephew, not his brother; therefore in this context, he is referring to him as a close relative. Lot is Abram’s brother’s son, hence Lot is considered his brother too.

Some passages clearly indicate that not all men are considered brothers, contrary to my critic’s well-meaning idealism. Consider God’s promise for Ishmael in Genesis 16:12: “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. Ishmael would live in the presence of his “brethren” (i.e., his relatives), but “every man’s hand” would be against him. These “men” are NOT Ishmael’s brethren. A further distinction is made when the children of Israel built and worshiped a golden calf in the desert. God was not pleased: “he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor” (Exodus 32:27). Here a distinction is made, even within the camp of Israel, between a brother, a companion and a neighbor. So, even in Israel’s camp not all were “brothers.”

With the multiplication of Abraham’s progeny, the term was expanded to include anyone descending from him, but never to include people from the surrounding nations (i.e., Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Amorites, etc.). When God calls Moses to go and rescue His people, Moses goes to his father-in-law to request leave. “And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive … ” (Exodus 4:18). Already the relationship had expanded beyond the familial to the national. Of course the original meaning of “brother” has not been discarded: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). Aaron, as we know, is Moses’ older sibling (Exodus 4:14).

There are many examples of the term “brother” being applied in a nationalistic sense. In Leviticus 10:8, Aaron’s sons had offered “strange fire” (v. 1) before the LORD, and God killed them (v. 2). Aaron is instructed not to mourn over the death of his sons (v. 6), “but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail . . .”(v. 8). In Deuteronomy 2:4 the “nation” of Edom (Esau) is considered a brother because Esau and Jacob (Israel) were brothers: “And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau …” This is akin to the U.S. and England being brethren. Again, “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land” (Deuteronomy 23:7). Note that the Edomite is considered a “brother” whereas the same distinction is not applied to the Egyptian. Further distinctions are made in business dealings. Consider Deuteronomy 23:20: “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury [interest]; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.” Note that there is a different standard for dealing with a “stranger” and dealing with a (national) brother.

This national brotherhood continued into the kingdom age and beyond, as demonstrated by David’s call to national unity in bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. “And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the LORD our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us” (1 Chronicles 13:2). During Babylonian exile, the Jews were in danger of extermination, yet they maintained a sense of national brotherhood and identity. “Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed” (Esther 10:3) After the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity, Nehemiah was tasked with rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Part of the task required that he instill a sense of national pride into the broken nation: “fight for your brethren” (Nehemiah 4:14).

The definition of brother as a sibling or a compatriot is maintained throughout the New Testament with the addition of the brotherhood of believers. This distinction is first made when Jesus is made aware of the presence of His mother and siblings outside while He taught in the synagogue (Matthew 12:46-50). “But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?” (v. 48). Not leaving the question open for discussion “he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (vv. 49-50). Jesus elevated brotherhood to a much higher level – above the familial, above the national. As such, Christ has founded a new and eternal nation. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9). “For both he that sanctifieth [i.e., Christ] and they who are sanctified [i.e., Christians] are all of one: for which cause he [i.e., Christ] is not ashamed to call them [i.e., Christians] brethren” (Hebrews 2:11). Recall that “sanctify” means to set apart, to make holy. Christ has set us apart from the rest of the world. As such, we should consider ourselves set apart, not in an arrogant sort of way, but in humility knowing that such a privilege is through no feat of our own, but through the precious blood of Christ. If one is truly of the brotherhood of Christ, there should be no shame; there should be no need for apology in making that claim!

Our brotherhood is eternal. Without going into the multitude of verses that promise eternal life to the believer, we come to the final book of the Bible where we see the Apostle John overwhelmed by all that has been revealed to him that he falls prostrate in worship before the angel. “And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). The angel affirms that he is a “fellow servant” along with John and John’s “brethren.” This affirms the eternal relationship that we have with Christian brothers and sisters.

I have shown that the term “brother” is not broadly defined in scripture to include the so called “brotherhood of man.” In my study, I found only three passages that might support this idea. First, in Genesis 19 where two angels visit Lot in Sodom to rescue him and his family from the coming destruction. The men of the city come to Lot’s house to rape the two visitors. Sadly, Lot had sunk so low as to refer to these men as brothers: “I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly” (Genesis 19:7). At this time, there was no national Israel, and Lot was not kin to these people, yet he called them brothers. Apparently, Lot had become “unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). If anything, this speaks against the “brotherhood of man.” A second use of the word brother outside of the familial or national is when Jacob went looking for his uncle, Laban. He comes upon a group of sheep herders: “And Jacob said unto them, My brethren, whence be ye? And they said, Of Haran are we” (Genesis 29:4). It is difficult to tell from the context, but apparently Jacob did not recognize these men and addressed them as “brethren” much like we do when greeting each other. As it turns out, he was related to them, so the Bible is accurate in recording that they were his brethren. A third and perhaps the strongest argument for the “brotherhood of man” is found in Malachi 2:10: “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Obviously, this traces our common bond all the way back to creation and our common parents Adam and Eve. “All men are natural children of God by the fact of creation (Acts 17:24-29), but become spiritual children of God only by regeneration (John 1:12-13; 3:3-8). However, the primary thrust of this verse is the unity of the children of Israel, all of whom have the same father, Jacob. In fact, Israel also is said to have been “created” by God as a special people (Isaiah 43:1, 7).”[2] So, even this verse is not a strong enough argument for the “brotherhood of man.”

In conclusion, Governor Robert Bentley was not wrong in his assertion “that only Christians are his brothers and sisters.” As Christians, our brotherhood is superior to any human relationship. As Christians we have a familial relationship through the blood of Christ. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). We have a national kinship as citizens of the eternal kingdom of God. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Hebrews 1:8). “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19). Governor Robert Bentley has nothing for which to apologize and neither do we.

End Notes:


[2] Morris, Henry M., The New Defender’s Study Bible, (Nashville, Word Publishing, 2006), p. 1372.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Imprimis

Imprimis

"If we cherish what is distinctive about Western civilization, then—whatever our religious convictions—we should respect rather than denigrate its Christian roots." From the article.