If Genesis Was Myth

If Genesis is not literal, then most of the Bible cannot be literal. If Genesis is just a myth, then most of the Bible cannot be true. In this post, I want to look at something interesting. We will be looking at the Bible as if Genesis was merely a myth or legend. We'll see the necessary repercussions of such a stance, and, Lord willing, prove how Genesis is foundational to the Christian faith.
 
If Genesis is a myth, God inspired a lie that propagated itself as literal history. Unless one wants to deny the inspiration of Genesis altogether, they must believe that God inspired a fake story—not only that, but also that this story was propagated as a real, historical account.
 
If Genesis is a myth, most of the Bible—by extension—must be mythical as well. For example, if Genesis isn't literal, Adam never truly existed.
 
"Adam, Sheth, Enosh," (1 Chronicles 1:1, emphasis mine)
 
Because Chronicles references Adam as a real man with a real lineage of descendants, then if Genesis is not literal, neither is Chronicles. By extension, neither Samuel nor Kings could be literal either as they compliment the Chronicles*.

Perhaps you see where I am taking this.
 
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew 1:1, emphasis mine)

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38, emphasis mine)

Assuming higher critics are correct that Genesis is a fictitious story, as well as taking into account what happens when Chronicles becomes fiction, we must state that both Matthew and Luke are mythical. Matthew because it mentions Abraham (Genesis) and David (Chronicles), and Luke because it mentions Adam (Genesis) and his descendants (Chronicles). If Luke and Matthew are not real history, then by extension, neither are Mark or John. And if none of the Gospels are true, then none of the New Testament is true either.

If Genesis is a myth, Jesus and the Apostles were greatly confused. Paul believed in a literal:
  • Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13-14)
  • Abraham (Romans 4:1-3, 9-22)
  • Sarah (Romans 9:9)
  • Isaac (Romans 9:9-10)
  • Rebekah (Romans 9:10-12)
  • Esau (Romans 9:11-13)
  • Jacob (Romans 9:11-13)
  • David (Romans 1:3, 4:6, 11:9)
Likewise, we could talk about Stephen, Peter, and many others. Even the most important authority, Jesus, believed—and taught—a literal understanding of Genesis.
  • Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8)
  • Abraham (Matthew 8:11, 22:32, Mark 12:26-27, Luke 13:16, 28, 16:23-31, 19:9, 20:37, John 8:39-40, 56, 58)
  • Isaac (Matthew 8:11, 22:32, Mark 12:26-27, Luke 13:28, 20:37)
  • Jacob (Matthew 8:11, Mark 12:26-27, Luke 13:28, 20:37)
  • Lot (Luke 17:29)
  • Lot's wife (Luke 17:32)
  • Sodom (Matthew 10:15, 11:23, 11:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, 17:29)
  • Gomorrha (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11)
Christ states the following regarding Moses:
 
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." (John 5:46, emphasis mine)

If we can't believe Genesis (part of "Moses"), we cannot believe Christ. I am not saying someone who doesn't believe in a literal Genesis is lost, but if you believe Christ, you must trust Genesis as well.

As we see, if one doesn't hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, the Christian faith crumbles. The foundation has been destroyed.

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20)

We are built upon the "foundation of the apostles and prophets". In other words, our foundation is the Word of God—the prophets and apostles were whom God used to get His Word from Heaven (Psalm 119:89) to Earth (2 Peter 1:21). As one preacher put it, "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." We ought to take the Bible at its word.

*Ruth would also not be true as it mentions David's lineage. Exodus, which contains the story of Israel leaving Egypt, also couldn't be true if Genesis isn't as "Israel" wouldn't be a real people with a real history. Thus Genesis through at least 2 Chronicles would not be true history.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why KJV?

Image
People often ask, "Why KJV? Why are you a King James onlyist?" In this post, I want to discuss some reasons why. Before I explain why I am a King James Bible believer, I want to make it clear what I do and do not believe. There are three main positions on the KJV: Hyper-KJV-onlyism (denoted by H-KJVO(ist)), you have regular KJV-onlyism (KJVO(ist)), and KJV preferred (KJVP). The H-KJVOist is the Ruckmanite . They believe in "dual" or "double" inspiration —the idea that the King James translators themselves were inspired in the process of making their translation. Next, we have the normal KJVOist. This person believes the KJV is a perfect in every word, much like the H-KJVO . However, in variance with the Ruckmanite, the normal KJVOist believes God helped guide the translators, but He did not inspire the translation. The normal KJVOist believes the KJV is perfect but allows the possibility of other perfect translations in other languages. Lastly, the KJVP. S...
Read more

Why I am a Classical Trinitarian

Image
Today, many Christians lack a good understanding of the Trinity. They know of the "three in one" but past that, they seem to have little knowledge. And in an attempt to explain it, many times they accidentally teach heresies—even if that is not their intent. In this post, I want to explain what the Bible says about the Trinity, and why I believe the Bible teaches what is known as Classical Trinitarianism. Basic Explanation of the Trinity: As we begin, I want to just explain what the Trinity is. The Trinity is not a term found in the Bible. However, it's a term we use to explain the triune nature of God (which is found in the Bible). Simply put, God is one What and three Whos . In other words, God is one Being and three Persons . As the hymn writer put it: "Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty! / God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!"¹ There was a creed written in the 6th century, the Athanasian Creed. This creed gives a very good outline about the ...
Read more

A Certainty of the Words

The Certainty, or Lack Thereof Modern Christianity is suffering. They doubt the Text of Scripture and question the legitimacy of many of its passages. However, this is not what God desires. "That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth ; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?" (Proverbs 22:21, emphasis mine) We can have a certainty in the Words of Truth—in the Word of God. We can trust the Words of Scripture! But today, modern translations cast doubt on Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and many other verses. The opposite of certainty is uncertainty. People today are questioning the certainty of those Words they call the Scriptures! "How can such a revision of the Scriptures be said to be the inerrant Word of God when multitudes of passages are brought into question by placing them in brackets?...With the questioning of many passages...how can one in all honesty confess unconditional trust in these new Bibles?"¹ The ...
Read more