Mythology Or History? Mythology Or History? Considering Genesis Chapters One Through Eleven. In considering the first eleven chapters of the Bible in Genesis (from the creation to the introduction of Abraham) many have tried to portray this content as purely instructive myth and have tried to use it as a basis for discrediting the factual accuracy of the Bible. However, in looking at how Jesus spoke of some of the stories within the first eleven chapters of Genesis, we do well to consider otherwise. Why? Because Jesus drew from those first eleven chapters of Genesis frequently and referenced them in a way that would make no sense if they were not historically accurate. Several examples are as follows: Guilt Of The Jews For The Bloodshed Of The Righteous From Able To Zachariah For example Jesus told the Jews that all of the bloodshed of all the righteous who had been slain from Abel to Zachariah would be required of His generation. -
Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. (Matthew 24: 34-36) Jesus mentioned Abel's blood. If Jesus believed Abel was not a historical character, how could He assign the guilt to His generation for the death of a group of people that included a mythical person (Abel)? How could a living person be justly guilty of the blood of a mythical person? Nobody would assign guilt to someone because of the death of someone that never existed. It truly appears in this scripture that Jesus is of the opinion that the story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4) was not a myth. Discussing Divorce With The Pharisees When asked about the Pharisees about issues of divorce, Jesus refers to Genesis 2:24. - For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
Some Pharisees came to Him to test Him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," He replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:3-6) If Jesus didn't believe the story of the creation existed, why would He present the story ("Haven't your read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female') as a historical event by stating "what God has joined together (a historical event), let no man separate."? If Jesus didn't believe the story of Genesis, is it not reasonable to conclude that He probably would not have used a reference to mythical (untrue) action by God as the basis for moral teaching? As It Was In The Days Of Noah Jesus also appears to believe that Noah was more than just a mythical character. - "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. "It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed." Luke 17:26-30
In this scripture Jesus predicted times that would resemble the times of Noah. If the times of Noah did not happen, how could times (the day the Son of Man is revealed) resemble something that didn't happen? Closing Consideration Additionally, if the writer of Genesis chapters one through eleven did not desire these chapters to be a historical presentation, then why would he have included chapter five - chapter five being the historical/genealogical link between Adam to Noah? Also, why would he have also included the historical/genealogical link from Noah to Abraham as presented in chapter ten? With these considerations in mind, I would kindly ask each of us to carefully consider any teaching of man that seeks to represent the Bible as myth. Jesus does not appear to view these stories as myth - so should we approach them any different? - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
- Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23) Portions Taken From The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible By Steve Gregg.
3:19:48 PM 
|
|
