Is the Entire Christian Faith Based on Genesis 1?

by hamiltonmj1983

No, it is not at all. But it seems that many Christians will argue that it is.

Timothy Michael Law posted a follow up to his post yesterday about a literal reading of Genesis.

I feel that this plays in to what was talked about in the Adam and Eve / Historicity posts here as well as the recent “How to Interpret the Bible” post.

In response to yesterday’s post by Timothy Law, many people complained that reading Adam and Eve metaphorically, or as anything other than exact, true history, caused serious problems with their faith. In fact, it affected a few specific areas:

*The foundations of marriage
*The truthfulness of Jesus
*The truthfulness of Paul
*The foundations for the rest of the Bible’s truth
*The origins of sin
*etc, etc, etc

Now, this seems a bit ridiculous to me, and luckily Timothy Law pointed out that, even if Genesis 1-11 had anything at all to do with these issues, they would only be affected if the rest of the bible was entirely silent on the matter.

Law also makes a great point a little later in the post:

Individual Scriptural texts ought to be read according to their own internal (and potentially distinctive) literary conventions, rather than being submitted to a flat, literal reading across the board.

I agree with this 100%, but I would also add that they should be read according to their own socio-historical context (to the very best that we can reconstruct it – right Phillip? Hehe).

Granted, part of Law’s argument is a bit of a “red herring;” whether or not people take Jesus’ commands seriously really has not bearing on why they mistakenly view Genesis 1-11 as history. Law does, however, make some good points otherwise and his post is well worth the read.