Genesis

[kshsj777]

I'm starting this thread to continue the discussion that started somewhere in the middle of the Ascension thread.

I have a few questions.

So far, all I've heard is that Genesis doesn't have to be interpreted literally, but I haven't heard any reasons why. So far, I've come up with plenty of reasons of my own why Gensis should be interpreted literally.

I also haven't heard what other option there is besides Creationism and Evolution (besides compromise). I do understand that other religions have their beliefs on origins, but certainly none that Christians should subscribe to.

I really want to hear your answers.

I'll be honest. You probably won't convince me otherwise, but that doesn't mean I won't listen and think about your responses.

I certainly don't claim to know everything, but I don't have to know the answer, to know that there is one.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Genesis needn't be taken as a literal account for a few reasons, the most puissant in my mind being that it reads as a liturgical text, and it follows the form and order of many other Ancient Near-Eastern creation stories, except it does something radical; all the gods and goddesses responsible for creation are put down into the place of being created by the one all-powerful God responsible for the Heavens and the Earth.

If one reads the earliest chapters of Genesis as the audience who initially heard it would have, then what is there is not simply an account of creation, but a rhythmic and liturgical story by which believers in El Shaddai would have affirmed to them that the world was indeed created by one omnipotent, almighty Creator, and that the gods and goddesses to whom pagan nations look are in fact false, weak, and at most mere representatives of something God Himself has dominion over.

Genesis is a text chiefly concerned with the salvific history of God's hand of providence working with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendents. A scientific, exacting analysis of how the world came into being was not the chief endeavour of its author. Because of the un-scientific language (and worldview) being dealt with, there is no precedent for saying that this account is exacting, detailed and sufficient in the eyes of scientific inquiry to answer all our questions about creation. As a person of faith, it answers everything important to me, but not to me as a person who studies quantum physics. This would be like trying to figure out cartography from references to "the four corners of the earth", or trying to figure out astronomy by looking at Revelation's description of stars falling from the sky.

There are two things that the writers of the Bible never got to witness with their own eyes: the very first things, and the very last. It is certainly terrible foolishness in my mind to ascribe a literalness to the book of Revelation, and this is for obvious reasons: we'll be looking for dragons, beasts, locusts with heads like humans, Elijah and Moses' return, etc. and also because the language used is patently symbolic, and matches much of the prophetic speech found elsewhere in the Bible. Genesis 1 follows a similar guideline... The language itself matches what's found in psalms, hymns and prophetic texts. It is nothing, however, like Chronicles or Judges, or even the latter parts of Genesis, particularly beginning with Abraham.

God is a writer and a communicator – when He speaks to His prophets He uses symbols and mannerisms familiar with people to teach a lesson, much as He does with Revelation. If He uses symbols to explicate an end to all things that is beyond our grasp yet still within God's, how much more might He use similar symbolism to explain our origins? Take that you've never heard of carbon atoms, molecular processes, or even germs or oxygen – all things that we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt exist, but sense would it make to describe this to people? What will a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about monkeys, biological processes and DNA do for us? It will confuse us. Frustrate us. It will make us miss the point, which is simply that God indeed made the world, and He is above creation, yet He cares for it, and the other false gods have no part in it.

As I've said, The creation account establishes several vital facts: 1) God made this world with purpose and said it was "very good." 2) God is above the creation, and not a mere part of it, and by consequence, He is above the gods representing parts of creation. 3) God defeats chaos, fear and darkness. To try and extrapolate a scientific understanding from this is something akin to trying to find a Bible code, or again trying to figure out astrophysics from reading about the stars falling in Revelation.

In regards to your second question, I think you have it about right, save that some might posit instead of your either/or situation, creation could be a both/and. "Either created or evolved" versus "both created and evolved." Just because Ken Hamm and Richard Dawkins say that a system for life's development doesn't need God to work, doesn't make it so. From my own study of biology and, yes, even evolutionary processes, it is impossible for life to exist without a "designing" hand over it. Evolution, in this sense, may in fact be a powerful arguement for God's existence.

A very concise and well-spoken essay that reflects a good deal of my attitudes towards this subject can be found here...

http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/C/creation.html

And a sample of why I do not appreciate the culture-war being waged with such a text as Genesis 1 can be found here...

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/answers-not-in-genesis

So, there you go. That off the top of my head is about the best explanation I can give for I view these things as I do. Mind you, I don't necessarily subscribe to evolutionary theory either. All I say is that if it's proven to be airtight, 100% scientifically true, then my faith isn't going to be shaken, and I won't have to rely on self-delusion and doublethink in order to keep it either.

Oh, and as this relates to science and creation, I'm moving this to the proper forum for such discussions.

;)

[kshsj777]

I wasn't sure if this thread belonged here or not. Thanks for moving it.

I will come back and read your post more thoroughly. Thanks for replying.

[ProfessorAlan]

My viewpoint on Genesis 1 & 2 comes for a variety of reasons, which are not necessarily presented as coherently and consistently as others:

1. I believe that the Bible is written in a range of literary styles (poetry, history, teaching, apocalypse, law, parable, prophecy), each of which need to be read in the style in which it was written. Genesis 1 & 2 seem to me to be the One True God's version of a creation legend, which many religions include as a starting point. What differentitates this one from all others is that this one was actually penned by the One True God, who actually created the universe and all that is in it.

2. The Word was delivered originally to specific people in specific circumstances. God speaks in ways that his people can understand, as much as that is possible. Written in a pre-scientific age for a pre-scientific people, trying to pull scientific fact from Genesis just doesn't compute for me.

3. On literalism: Note that Jesus spent time correcting those who took his words literally. Nicodemus at first took Jesus' word about being born again literally, and Jesus had to correct Him, because He wasn't speaking literally. In John 6, many disciples chose to turn back and no longer follow Him (v. 66), because they were taking His descriptions of Himself as bread too literally.

4. On literalism (2): Joshua 10:13 tells of the sun standing still. This was written because that fit with their interpretation of how the cosmos worked. Obviously, it was the earth that stood still in its rotation around the sun, and not the sun that stood still. But Joshua was not written to explain astronomy, so it does not first fix the peoples' incorrect scientific views first. Instead, it just simplifies it, using the people's understanding, and just says that the sun stood still. Good science wasn't the point of the passage.

5. On literalism (3): I don't believe that God has wings (Ps 17:8) or that the world has four corners (Rev 7:1 & 20:8). Those are expressions I have no trouble believing involve poetic license.

6. It seems clear to me that micro-evolution takes place, and that some aspects of Darwinian theory are true, expressing what in fact occurs in the natural world. New species come into existence, naturally or through man's efforts, and certainly species have gone extinct. God's creation is never static, he is a dynamic Creator. I revel in that aspect of Him. Genesis 1:11 & 12, as well as 1:24, speak of a world created to continually bring forth new generations, and perhaps new varieties. That doesn't worry me.

7. I am not anti-science, anti-knowledge, or anti-education, and I find many (though not all) on the other side to be. The proportion of non-believers in the hard sciences is well above average, but I don't believe that science, in general, is part of athiestic conspiracy, a view I have heard some believers express.

My goal is to interpret the Word correctly, in the way that the Lord intended when it was delivered to man.

Know that I take the Word very seriously. I take some passages non-literally because I fervently believe that God did not intend me to take those passages literally.

Does this complicate things? Does it make interpretation harder? Absolutely it does. That only confirms it to me, because not only are His thoughts and ways above mine, but they are as high above mine as the heavens are above the earth (Is. 55:9). Simplicity in theology does not impress me.

[Derby]

kshsj777

'sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts'
Amen, thank you for that.

I have had a quick skim through Matthew's Gospel.

I do not take everything that Jesus said literally -
5.29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out
5.30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off

Some verses have been taken in different ways and the different opinions have endured side by side for centuries -
26.26 Bread...this is my body
26.27 Cup [of wine]...this is my blood

Some Christians experience the reality of their faith most deeply in liturgy and sacrament - some have this experience elsewhere.

I would be interested to know which are some of the verses in the Bible that you do not take literally?

Blessings to you, Derby

[Ransom v. Unman]

kshsj777

'sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts'
Amen, thank you for that.

I have had a quick skim through Matthew's Gospel.

I do not take everything that Jesus said literally -
5.29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out
5.30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off

Some verses have been taken in different ways and the different opinions have endured side by side for centuries -
26.26 Bread...this is my body
26.27 Cup [of wine]...this is my blood

Some Christians experience the reality of their faith most deeply in liturgy and sacrament - some have this experience elsewhere.

I would be interested to know which are some of the verses in the Bible that you do not take literally?

Blessings to you, Derby

For the sake of not derailing this thread, maybe you could take it to a new topic (in the Bible study forums) or into private-messages. :)

Thanks!

[eddif]

A spiritual God made a physical universe, and just hid all sorts of information in that creation. Parables do not exist without a physical side. In our contact with physical life we should be looking for the spiritual answers. I suppose a writer has a concept he wishes others to see, hear, think, etc. The writer organizes his words to take another person into that thought. An artist uses the things at hand to convey all he can. God did the same thing during creation. "For the things of God are truly seen through what he has created"

We can be so spiritually minded that we are no earthly good, or we might be so physically minded we are no spiritual good. The physical may be passing away, but it is not quite gone yet. I try to stay in both areas, but sometimes it is just hard to do.
Belton

[Derby]

kshsj777

'I suppose a writer has a concept he wishes others to see, hear, think, etc.'

Following this comment from eddif I would like to try to get my point over again.
If you do not accept the Bible literally you may think that you are thereby rejecting what God says, even reject salvation - therefore for instance you may need to reconcile a literal early Genesis with problems that arise from that stance, or give reasons for claiming that there are no problems arising from your stance - such as a different view about the Flood.
I see the account of creation as a story to get something across to us - that God created the world - the central very something that we are all claiming.
Likewise I see the garden of Eden as a story - it gets across the Fall of mankind and the lifelong bond between partners.
The princess bit the poisoned apple and the prince awoke her with a kiss - we are poisoned by sin and Jesus awoke us with his love.
A woman is made from the rib of a man and so they are one indivisible flesh.

Jesus said if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Did he mean it or was it a story with a truth? If you cut it off and then steal with your left hand you do not have a right hand to cut it off with. He is saying be resolute in your rejection of sin. A Proverb says look not to the right or to the left - if you tried that today you would end up with a road accident - but you must be resolute to reach your journeys intended end.

Why did God tell Hosea to marry an adulterous wife - to teach her or to teach us?

Why teach truth with stories?
Perhaps because they are timeless.

To sum up, I see no problem with treating early Genesis as metaphor.

[kshsj777]

3. On literalism: Note that Jesus spent time correcting those who took his words literally. Nicodemus at first took Jesus' word about being born again literally, and Jesus had to correct Him, because He wasn't speaking literally. In John 6, many disciples chose to turn back and no longer follow Him (v. 66), because they were taking His descriptions of Himself as bread too literally.

I don't believe it take every statement in the Bible literally. That's not what I'm saying. I agree that there are different genres and different rules of interpretation. There's a lot of metaphorical language like similies, metaphors figurative language in the Psalms for example, so I would expect not to take everything in there literally. Same thing with Revelation. The letters in the first three chapters should be taken literally, because they are letters. But just about every place else, there's a lot of symbolism.

However, you don't find metaphorical language in Genesis. I don't remember reading any "like" or "as" or any obvious symbols. I don't see any explanations stating "the six days of creation represent this" etc.




4. On literalism (2): Joshua 10:13 tells of the sun standing still. This was written because that fit with their interpretation of how the cosmos worked. Obviously, it was the earth that stood still in its rotation around the sun, and not the sun that stood still. But Joshua was not written to explain astronomy, so it does not first fix the peoples' incorrect scientific views first. Instead, it just simplifies it, using the people's understanding, and just says that the sun stood still. Good science wasn't the point of the passage.


For the most part, the Bible was written from the viewpoint of Earth, and how things looked from Earth. From Earth, it looks like the sun is rising or setting. But that doesn't mean they didn't know that the Earth revolved around the sun. They just chose to describe it from the Earth's point of view.

In order to be consistent in claiming that that is a scientific error, you would have to accuse meterologists of being unscientific, because they use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" all the time, and so do we.

So just because we use those words, does that mean we don't understand that it the Earth moving, and not the sun? No. We just choose to describe things from the Earth's point of view.

After all, isn't all motion relative? Einstien taught us that.



5. On literalism (3): I don't believe that God has wings (Ps 17:8) or that the world has four corners (Rev 7:1 & 20:8). Those are expressions I have no trouble believing involve poetic license.



Neither do I.



6. It seems clear to me that micro-evolution takes place,



Yes it does.



and that some aspects of Darwinian theory are true, expressing what in fact occurs in the natural world. New species come into existence, naturally or through man's efforts, and certainly species have gone extinct. God's creation is never static, he is a dynamic Creator. I revel in that aspect of Him. Genesis 1:11 & 12, as well as 1:24, speak of a world created to continually bring forth new generations, and perhaps new varieties. That doesn't worry me.



I don't believe that animals & people never change biologically. Of course they do. But the changes you see are all based on information that already exists.

For example, let's say you have two dogs. They each have a gene for long hair and one for short hair. Now using a punnet square, with L (long hair) and l (short hair) you come with combinations of LL, Ll, and ll. Now the dog with LL no longer has the information for short hair, and if the long haired gene is the dominant gene, that means none of his offspring can have short hair. On the other hand, the dog that has ll , his offspring can only have long hair if the offspring gets a L gene from the mother. So the information gets divided up randomly, and as a result, information is lost, never gained.

I'm sure you already understand genetics, but I'm trying to make a point. Never can offspring get information that its parents didn't have. All mutations are a loss of information, and any rare benefictial mutations usually have a side effect. A single celled organism cannot become a man, because the information to make a man does not exist in the organism.

All we've seen is that dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats etc. Just as God said, "Let them reproduce after their own kind."




7. I am not anti-science, anti-knowledge, or anti-education, and I find many (though not all) on the other side to be. The proportion of non-believers in the hard sciences is well above average, but I don't believe that science, in general, is part of athiestic conspiracy, a view I have heard some believers express.

My goal is to interpret the Word correctly, in the way that the Lord intended when it was delivered to man.

Know that I take the Word very seriously. I take some passages non-literally because I fervently believe that God did not intend me to take those passages literally.



I'm not against science. I'm evolution which an atheist philosophy masquerading as science. Evolution didn't make astronauts go to the moon or allow computers and telephones to be built. Operational everyday science did.



Does this complicate things? Does it make interpretation harder? Absolutely it does. That only confirms it to me, because not only are His thoughts and ways above mine, but they are as high above mine as the heavens are above the earth (Is. 55:9). Simplicity in theology does not impress me.

What is so simple about creationism? I mean can you speak the phrase "Let there be light?" and then there is light? Can you create matter out of nothing? Can you make the entire universe in six days? Did you cause a wordwide flood to cause such a huge catrostrophe that it utterly changed the earth?

Sure the Bible isn't a textbook. And a good thing too, cause textbooks have to update every few years. Sure God didn't use scientific terminology, but does He have to in order for it to be true?

What's the problem with taking Genesis literally? Why not? If it wasn't for the evolutionists insisting in millions and billions of years, you wouldn't have any reason to interpret it other than literally.

[Ransom v. Unman]

What's the problem with taking Genesis literally? Why not? If it wasn't for the evolutionists insisting in millions and billions of years, you wouldn't have any reason to interpret it other than literally.

Well, what scientists say (with very good reason, too, mind you) does pose a problem...

[lynnmosher]

This goes to the billions of years old theory. Here's a supposition...so don't jump all over me...it's just a thought. What if, because of the flood, the waters' compression changed all the "evidence" so that it appeared to be billions of years old. Wouldn't that help explain things. Any thoughts?

[Katibriah]

This goes to the billions of years old theory. Here's a supposition...so don't jump all over me...it's just a thought. What if, because of the flood, the waters' compression changed all the "evidence" so that it appeared to be billions of years old. Wouldn't that help explain things. Any thoughts?

What if the scientists method for dating things are wrong.

[lynnmosher]

That was my thought.

[kshsj777]

Yes. A worldwide flood would explain the evidence. A lot of water over a short time can produce the same results as a little water over a lot of time. Actually, the results wouldn't quite be the same.

For example, we have fossils that couldn't possibly exist unless the animals were buried rapidly.

It's another reason why people try to insist that the flood was local. Because if it was global, then all the "evidence" for a long age of the earth as far as geology goes disappears. Everything can be explained by the flood, so there's no need for millions of years of erosion.

But if you read Genesis carefully, you'll see that it couldn't possibly have been a local event. For example it mentions that the highest mountains were covered. The whole purpose of the flood was to destroy every living thing except for Noah and his family (and of course sea animals would've survived).

And if it was a local flood... umm... why would God tell Noah to build an ark? Why not just move to higher ground or move some place where it's not going to flood? Surely that'd be a lot quicker and easier than building an ark.

Once again. People try to "re-interpet" things, and try to ignore what it plainly says, or come up with excuses not to believe it. I know some of you claim that you're believing it, but just how exactly are you believing if you deny what it says?

I know you all love God and His Word; I'm just trying to get you to be consistent. You say you believe it. Well... believe it!

Just read it. It's not that hard to understand. It's not some riddle to solve. It's not full of weird imagery and symbolism.

Sin and death are real. How they got here is real too. If Genesis is just a nice story, an allegory meant to obscure how we really got here, then why bother having it in the Bible then? If all we're supposed to get from it is that God made the world, then why just rip out Genesis 1:2 - whatever arbitrary verse you want to pick?

God isn't dumb. He gave us those details of what He did on each day for a reason. He said "Let there be light" and there was light. He said that there was morning and evening, the first day. That sounds like a 24 hour period to me. What else could it mean?

If God wanted to communicate that He used evolution to create us, than He could have said it in simple terminology, that is assuming that our ancestors were dumb and couldn't understand anything. This is something I came up with at the spur of the moment, and it's a little bit sarcastic, though I tried to be serious.

"A long time ago, I made time and space. Then I made a small amount of matter and kept making more and more. Then over a long period of time, the stars formed. And then earth formed. I started life as a small tiny living thing. Then I guided it until it became bigger. Then there were more organisms, but I kept making mistakes and having to let some of them die. After a long period of trial and error, mankind was made. I gave them souls. I'm still creating even today, still experimenting. I declared my creation very good, even though there had to be a lot of death and suffering involved. A man named Adam sinned, and so he and all his descendants were seperated from me. I thought I could save them if I took their of their sin, but then I remembered that death was normal and that I couldn't get rid of death after all by taking care of sin."

I hope you get my point. Evolution depends on the weaker dying out and stronger survive for species to improve. God couldn't have used evolution to create, because that would mean He used death and suffering to do so. But the Bible makes it clear that death came as a result of one man's sin: Adam.

Jesus can't save us from death by taking care of sin, unless sin is the cause of death. The phrase "Last Adam" has absolutely no meaning unless there was a First Adam that got us into this mess. Before you can call out for a Savior, you have to understand that you need one.

I would like to say that if I seem mean in this post, I'd like to apologize. In no way do I mean to insult anyone or tear them down. I'm just interested in the truth. Sorry this was so long.

[ProfessorAlan]

So far, all I've heard is that Genesis doesn't have to be interpreted literally, but I haven't heard any reasons why.
Thank you for replying to my own long post. I explained a little bit of my why regarding Gen 1 & 2, as you asked.

What's the problem with taking Genesis literally? Why not? I don't think I have to take Genesis 1 & 2 literally to understand the overall point that God is making in describing His role in the Creation, vis a vis what other "gods" and Creation myths claimed. But at the core, I don't take it literally for the same reason I don't take other passages (as I indicated earlier) literally -- because I honestly and fervently believe that God did not intend me to take those chapters literally.

And note that I have never said anything about the rest of Genesis, and you keep leaping to conclusions about how I must not believe in sin, the Fall, the need for redemption, etc ... and yet I do believe in those core Christian fundamentals.

If it wasn't for the evolutionists insisting in millions and billions of years, you wouldn't have any reason to interpret it other than literally. So ... am I a closet evolutionist myself, or just unknowingly in their thrall? Note that I have never never never said positive things about the key conclusions and implications of Darwinian theory, but perhaps my denials here are just part of how deeply I've been deceived? :confused:

You seem to be implying that I believe what I believe not because I believe it, but because I have been duped by the evolutionists, and in this framework, not reading Genesis 1 & 2 literally is the evidence that I've been duped.
--------------------------------
To clarify, I'm more secure in my view of the allegorical/mythic nature of Genesis 1:1-2:3, and perhaps the descriptive passages to 2:14.

As we move to the story of Adam and Eve, beginning in 2:15, I see a transition to a more literal telling. But (here's where we'd start fighting again), I have no problem seeing lots and lots of time passing between the Creation and 2:15.

[Derby]

kshsj777 and friends

'I'm sure you already understand genetics, but I'm trying to make a point. Never can offspring get information that its parents didn't have. All mutations are a loss of information'

I don't think your metaphor about the dogs is quite correct. The choice is not restricted to dogs with long or short hair, the result of the mutation may be a dog with no hair or hair of a different colour or hair that makes him look like an animal that is his predator.

I don't think this discussion is about Faith - we all have the same Faith - it is merely about our individual opinion of current science - a wide range of these opinions is possible and viable with Faith. We each have a set of opinions and we each tailor our total conception to give us a sense of equilibrium.

Lynne had a better phrase for it but I can't find the post - perhaps she can.

[lynnmosher]

Hmmm...I can't find it either. I don't know what it was that I said.

[kshsj777]

I don't think your metaphor about the dogs is quite correct. The choice is not restricted to dogs with long or short hair, the result of the mutation may be a dog with no hair or hair of a different colour or hair that makes him look like an animal that is his predator.




But a dog having no hair proves my point exactly. The dog has lost the information for having hair. A mutation destroys information for having a characteristic, or information is moved so that things don't appear in the right spots. DNA is a blueprint. You mess with the blueprint and bad things happen.

[Derby]

Lynne

"I know, Colin, it is sometimes confusing. It has taken me several years to find that point of comfort and assurance on a few matters."

Your wise words were in the Ascension thread, where this discussion mutated from.

The main thing is that a person has a saving faith in Jesus.

If they have some strange ideas in addition - in someone else's opinion - why disturb them?

[lynnmosher]

Whew! I looked through all the posts in all the different threads but couldn't find anything. I'm glad you found it. I couldn't imagine what I had said!

[Derby]

Lynne

You see; I take great notice of what you say.

[lynnmosher]

Yikes! :eek: Boy, I'd better watch my tongue...er...fingers! LOL!

[Tommie Lyn]

This goes to the billions of years old theory. Here's a supposition...so don't jump all over me...it's just a thought. What if, because of the flood, the waters' compression changed all the "evidence" so that it appeared to be billions of years old. Wouldn't that help explain things. Any thoughts?
Right, Lynn. There are so many aspects of this question to consider.

For instance, there may be gaps in the biblical record in Genesis 1. (God's word is not a science manual. It is not a history book. Our mistake is trying to fit it to our concepts of how an account of events should be written.)

Take the first two verses of Genesis:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

How long was "in the beginning"? There isn't any mention of the length of time involved (and remember, God is outside time). And what was going on with the earth while it was "formless and void," while "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters"?

And, assuming we could apply our own concept of time, how long was it after "in the beginning" before God spoke light into existence? One hour? One year? One billion years? The biblical record doesn't say. What forces might have been operating on the "formless" and "void" earth during that time?

Why is it that we argue over things to which we will not receive answers this side of eternity? There is a scripture which comes to mind (and although Paul's words were addressing a different matter, they seem to fit other discussions as well):

"As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion," 1 Timothy 1:3-6

As I said in the other thread, those questions don't bother me. My focus is on "furthering the administration of God which is by faith" and "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." And believe me, I have enough of a struggle with the "pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith" -- I don't need to add to my difficulties by bothering myself with speculation on questions to which no one has answers.

[lynnmosher]

Amen! I agree wholeheartedly, Tommie Lyn.

[kshsj777]

Right, Lynn. There are so many aspects of this question to consider.

For instance, there may be gaps in the biblical record in Genesis 1. (God's word is not a science manual. It is not a history book. Our mistake is trying to fit it to our concepts of how an account of events should be written.)



Actually, the Bible is a history book. It tells of our of orgins in Genesis, and gives a broad overview of the history of the world until the time of Abraham, where it narrows down to the history and culture of the Israelites, and how God dealt with them, throughout time. The Bible gives a record of events that actually happened in the past, so it's history.

Granted, there are other genres too, like poetry in the psalms, which has numerous references to the historical events that took place in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Ruth etc.

These accounts are not made-up stories meant to teach a lesson. Yes, they are teaching a lesson, but these events really happened. The Bible is a non-fiction work of God, supernatural writing through men, using their personalites and writing styles, but yet the text remains free from error.




Take the first two verses of Genesis:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

How long was "in the beginning"? There isn't any mention of the length of time involved (and remember, God is outside time). And what was going on with the earth while it was "formless and void," while "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters"?

And, assuming we could apply our own concept of time, how long was it after "in the beginning" before God spoke light into existence? One hour? One year? One billion years? The biblical record doesn't say. What forces might have been operating on the "formless" and "void" earth during that time?



First of all, the day when light is created is refered to as the first day. There weren't any days prior to the first day, or else the first day wouldn't have been the first day.

Secondly the verse Exodus 20:11 "For in six days God made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is."

That covers everything. Even when the earth was formless and void, it was still Earth.

Even if you could justify a gap, it still would still contradict evolution. All the stars, sun and moon, would still have been made about six thousand years ago. All the geologic formations would have to occur within the past six thousand years. All life would still have orginated six thousand years ago, created in distinct kinds. All the supposed evidence for billions of years would still be just as false.



Why is it that we argue over things to which we will not receive answers this side of eternity?



We have been given an answer this side of eternity. Problem is, people don't want to believe it.



There is a scripture which comes to mind (and although Paul's words were addressing a different matter, they seem to fit other discussions as well):

"As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion," 1 Timothy 1:3-6



I quoted many examples in a prior post of how evolution contradicts the account in Genesis. I'll paste that section here in case some of you didn't get a chance to see it:

Evolution teaches that the sun formed before the earth, but Genesis teaches that the Sun was made on Day 4, after the Earth. Evolution teaches that we came from a common ancestor. But God says He made people, animals and plants after their own kind. Sure species change, but you'll never see one animal turn into another.

Evolution teaches that the canyons and other formations took millions of years to form. God says there was a worldwide catastrophe that only Noah and his family survived. This worldwide flood could easily explain what all the fossils we see and even explain it better than the evolutionary theory.

Evolution teaches that life came from single celled organisms, but God says that He created Man in His own image.

Evolution teaches that theory of the Big Bang, but God says He created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is.

Evolution teaches that death is a normal part of life, but God says that everything He made was good. Evolution requires millions of years of death and suffering before humans came along, but God says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12)

Evolution tries to teach that man is constantly evolving and improving, but God says in Romans 3: 10-18:

10as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13"THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"
"THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
14"WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
15"THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."



The theory of evolution plainly contradicts not only doctrines taught in Genesis, but also in other parts of the Bible as well.

Paul says, in 2 Cor 10:5 "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ."

Since evolution contradicts some fundemental doctrines of the Bible such as man's total depravity and that man is created in the image of God, I believe that it is imperative that I do my best to refute it.



As I said in the other thread, those questions don't bother me.



It should bother you that people don't want to believe God's Word.




My focus is on "furthering the administration of God which is by faith" and "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." And believe me, I have enough of a struggle with the "pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith" -- I don't need to add to my difficulties by bothering myself with speculation on questions to which no one has answers.


If unbelievers who can read the Bible just like we can, see that we refuse to believe the book of Genesis, relagating it to a myth, if we try to talk to them about Jesus and His work on the cross, they're going to laugh at us in the face for our inconsistency.

Don't think the six days of Genesis need to be taken literally? How about the three days Jesus spent in the grave? (In Jewish thinking, part of day was counted as a whole day, so part of Friday, Saturday, part of Sunday, three days)

Or what about Jesus rising from the dead? Paul says if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, our faith is in vain. But "Science" says that dead men don't come back to life.

How about all the miraclous healings Jesus did? Turning the water into wine? Multiplying the loaves of bread and fish?

"Science" says five loaves and two fish can't feed over 5,000 people. "Science" says people aren't miraculously healed. Science says you can't turn water into wine (at least not that fast.)

Or what about the virgin birth? "Science" says virgins don't give birth.

My point is, is that science can only deal in the realm of the natural. It takes no account of supernatural events. Our origins are supernatural, so science has no bearing on our origins. It can only tell us what is happening now, not what happened then.

However, the Bible is a supernatural book, about a supernatural God, who through men, wrote this Book for us to read and believe. About how God supernaturally created the entire universe in six days. About how God made Adam & Eve our first ancestors, who disobeyed God, plunging the entire human race into sin and death.

About how God chose a people for Himself to be priests to the rest of the world, about how God supernaturally displayed His power by defeating Israel's enemies.

About how God promised a Deliverer. One that would redeem us from the curse of the Fall. One who would conquer sin and death. One in whom the "very fullness of Deity bodily dwells." One who would suffer and die, and rise again in three days. One who promises that we who were currently identified with Adam and his sin, could now be identified with Christ and his righteousness. One who is coming back again to judge the nations.

From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, God speaks and we have to listen and believe.

Thus says the Lord.

[ProfessorAlan]

kshsj777: I love your passion, sister!

Sure, we see things differently, but I just wanted to drop this comment into our (ongoing, I'm sure) friendly discussion.

[kshsj777]

Thank you, professor.

[Tommie Lyn]

Actually, the Bible is a history book. It tells of our of orgins in Genesis, and gives a broad overview of the history of the world until the time of Abraham, where it narrows down to the history and culture of the Israelites, and how God dealt with them, throughout time. The Bible gives a record of events that actually happened in the past, so it's history.

No. It is not a history book. It does contain historic accounts, as it contains poetry, prophecy and other elements, even quasi-scientific statements. But it is not a history book. Nor a science book.

It is a revelation of the will of God for man.

It is when we try to view it as "a history book," or "a science book" that we get into trouble, because that is not what it is and that is not why it was written. Many of the so-called contradictions in the Bible are a result of people viewing it as other than simply the will of God.

[kshsj777]

If the Bible has a lot of historical accounts of historical events, then what is wrong with calling it a history book? I'm not saying that it is just a history book; I did say it had poetry, prophecy etc.

Yes, it is God's will for man, I agree completely.

[ProfessorAlan]

To expand on Tommie Lyn's comment, I think it's important to keep in mind that the Bible is history, but only to the extent that God desired to communicate history to us as part of a grander revelation to man. And it's science, but only to the (limited, I believe) extent that God desired to communicate science to us as part of grander revelation to man.

[kshsj777]

I agree with that statement.

The purpose of the Bible is to bring salvation to the human race, and since it is God's Word, and infallible, whenever it does make statement pertaining to history or science, it's completely accurate.

There have been times when unbelieving scientists have said the Bible was wrong about something, like Jericho or the existence of Belshazzar as co-ruler, or the existence of the Philistines (or was it the Amalekites, I'm not sure) Only to find out that they were wrong, not the Bible.

[Derby]

kshsj777

"You mess with the blueprint and bad things happen."

Your metaphor regarding the hair of the dog seems to reduce genetics to possible permutations of two factors.
I understood that genes can mutate in such a way that they do 'mess with the blueprint'.
Also, not only bad things can happen but good things can happen, as I indicated in my extension of your example - the dog can mutate and appear to be its predator and therefore possibly avoid being eaten.

[kshsj777]

Well my metaphor may have only used two factors, but the principle is the same regardless of how many traits are being passed down.

The dog won't be able get an ability that isn't in its DNA. Information just doesn't come from nowhere. Certain orders of As, Gs, Ts & Cs will code for certain things. A certain really long string of DNA will code for proteins that form cells that might form your arm for example. If it's randomly shuffled around it would turn into nonsense, and then you might not end up having an arm.

It's like saying that if you took a book (like a novel), ripped out all it's pages, and scattered the pages everywhere that by picking them up at random that you've end up with a better novel that made sense.

Most of time, when a mutation happens, at best, it won't hurt anything, and at worst the organism will die.

Beneficial mutations are rare, but they still involve a loss of information. Not a single mutation has been shown to add information to the gene pool.

A dog is not going to get an ability to "appear to be it's predator and therefore possibly avoid being eaten." If the information isn't there to start with, it isn't going to get it.

Not unless some genius figures out the language of DNA and is able to write a DNA code allowing organisms do things not already in its DNA. But that is the realm of science fiction, not science (at least for the time being :))

[Derby]

kshsj777

Thanks for your reply. There are things in nature which can be accounted for by genetic mutation. If not from genetics how would you explain it? For instance, the 'flatfish'; from ENCARTA:

"The young are bilaterally symmetrical and swim as most other fishes do. As development progresses, one eye, usually the left, migrates over the top of the head or, in some species, directly through the skull, and becomes situated over the other eye. A bony ridge extending from the tail to the snout develops to support the dorsal fin. The skull becomes greatly compressed, and the face is permanently distorted to face upwards. The eyes are able to move independently, so the fishes can see in all directions as they lie on the bottom"

[kshsj777]

I know absolutely nothing about flatfish so I have no idea how to respond to that. Either God made them that way, or at the least the information for that was there in the first place, or they lost the information for where it was supposed to be. That's my guess, but as I said I know nothing about this animal.

[Derby]

kshsj777

I find the first two possibilities unconvincing - they don't seem compatible with a perfect Creator.

If the eye-location information was lost I would expect to see two or three groups of flatfish - one with normally placed eyes and one with one eye in a random location and perhaps one with only one eye. But all groups would still swim as most fish do.

Therefore I am left with genetic mutation to change the survival system of a creature. So these fish became flat, [and some also change colour for camouflage] and lie at the bottom of the sea, largely unnoticed by predators.

This seems to be good evidence for a Great Designer and a method of organism development - just as DNA itself is a wonder of Creation.

[kshsj777]

Well maybe if the eye location is a good thing -- i.e. it helps the fish, maybe God did put the info there in the first place. Okay I don't know about the three groups of flatfish thing. Sorry that I can't answer this well.

If you want a really good answer, go here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/

If you email them, they'll usually respond within a few weeks. I've emailed them several times and they are very good at answering questions in a way that makes sense. You can also ask them any other technical scientific questions. Just about all the scientists have PhDs in their field, so they should have better knowledge about things like flatfish.

Hope this will help. I don't know everything :)

[eddif]

Originally Posted by kshsj777
What's the problem with taking Genesis literally? Why not? If it wasn't for the evolutionists insisting in millions and billions of years, you wouldn't have any reason to interpret it other than literally.


I will state the following just like I actually know what was/ is going on. Please cut me a little slack. I was not there and was not talking to God.


To take Genesis literally is the Question of the Day. Mankind was brought up thinking time was stable. Look at the pyramids and the celestial alignment is still right on, so if time is running down it is all running down together (not just our little corner of the universe). The first three days of creation appear to depend on God for length and duration. The day was established by “The evening and the morning were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day”. Then God seems to take a whole day to set up the universe to establish time as we know it. When day five arrives a whole new situation exists, and time is now established by celestial bodies and their movement. Day five and six are 24 hour days. My mind can not comprehend doing everything in 24 hours, because of my limited abilities. God had plenty of practice with the first part of creation, and maybe he got faster (every time I do some new skill I usually get faster).

If any of this holds water the first few days might have been longer than a 24 hour day.
Belton

[ProfessorAlan]

The insistence that God (for whom a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day) had to write Genesis as Earth-centered (so a 24-hours day makes sense even though the celestial bodies that determine the lenght of our day had not been created yet) strikes me as the same mistake that our earlier brothers and sisters made in their insistence that the Earth must be at the center of the universe, since the creation of Earth and man was the pinnacle of His creation, it must be the center of universe, despite what the science says. Except of course that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, despite what our viewpoint/paradigm taught us.

That viewpoint/paradigm led to wrong conclusions then, and I believe it does now, as well.

[Katibriah]

Alright. I don't usually pipe in on discussions like this, but I feel compelled to say. God is God. He's the creator. And to me that is all that matters. I don't care how long it took Him to bring everything into existence. The fact of the matter is that He did. And I also want to say that if He wants to change one of His creations for whatever reason... well, since He is the creator He could do that with very little trouble.
That's all. I'm done. Carry on. :)

[Ransom v. Unman]

Alright. I don't usually pipe in on discussions like this, but I feel compelled to say. God is God. He's the creator. And to me that is all that matters. I don't care how long it took Him to bring everything into existence. The fact of the matter is that He did. And I also want to say that if He wants to change one of His creations for whatever reason... well, since He is the creator He could do that with very little trouble.
That's all. I'm done. Carry on. :)

Ditto.

:)

[kshsj777]

Originally Posted by kshsj777
What's the problem with taking Genesis literally? Why not? If it wasn't for the evolutionists insisting in millions and billions of years, you wouldn't have any reason to interpret it other than literally.


I will state the following just like I actually know what was/ is going on. Please cut me a little slack. I was not there and was not talking to God.


To take Genesis literally is the Question of the Day. Mankind was brought up thinking time was stable. Look at the pyramids and the celestial alignment is still right on, so if time is running down it is all running down together (not just our little corner of the universe). The first three days of creation appear to depend on God for length and duration. The day was established by “The evening and the morning were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day”. Then God seems to take a whole day to set up the universe to establish time as we know it. When day five arrives a whole new situation exists, and time is now established by celestial bodies and their movement. Day five and six are 24 hour days. My mind can not comprehend doing everything in 24 hours, because of my limited abilities. God had plenty of practice with the first part of creation, and maybe he got faster (every time I do some new skill I usually get faster).

If any of this holds water the first few days might have been longer than a 24 hour day.
Belton

When God said evening and morning the first day, He meant a 24 hr period from the Earth's point of view. God doesn't need practice; He can get His creation done right the first time, and He could have created everything in less than a millisecond if He wanted to. But instead, He chose to do it in six days, to establish the pattern that we are supposed to work for six days and rest for one.

[ProfessorAlan]

When God said evening and morning the first day, He meant a 24 hr period from the Earth's point of view.

How do you know that? Other than your interpretation being necessary to maintain the 6-day old-earth scenario, I mean.

This is the viewpoint I was referring to a few posts back, when I wrote (modified slightly):

"The insistence that God (for whom a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day) had to write Genesis as Earth-centered (so a 24-hours day makes sense even though the celestial bodies that determine the lenght of our day had not been created yet) strikes me as the same mistake that our earlier brothers and sisters made in their insistence that the Earth must be at the center of the universe, since the creation of Earth and man was the pinnacle of His creation, it must be the center of universe, despite what the science says. Except of course that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, despite what that viewpoint/paradigm taught us must be.

That viewpoint/paradigm led to wrong conclusions then, and I believe it does now, as well. "

[Ransom v. Unman]

Looks like we're rounding the circle for another lap...

[ProfessorAlan]

but it's (mostly) in love, Ransom!!!!!

[Ransom v. Unman]

Just mentioning!

[kshsj777]

How do you know that? Other than your interpretation being necessary to maintain the 6-day old-earth scenario, I mean.

This is the viewpoint I was referring to a few posts back, when I wrote (modified slightly):

"The insistence that God (for whom a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day) had to write Genesis as Earth-centered (so a 24-hours day makes sense even though the celestial bodies that determine the lenght of our day had not been created yet) strikes me as the same mistake that our earlier brothers and sisters made in their insistence that the Earth must be at the center of the universe, since the creation of Earth and man was the pinnacle of His creation, it must be the center of universe, despite what the science says. Except of course that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, despite what that viewpoint/paradigm taught us must be.

That viewpoint/paradigm led to wrong conclusions then, and I believe it does now, as well. "

What does Earth being/not being at the center of the universe have to do with how long God took to create the universe? We don't know if the Earth is at the center or not; so what if it is? And so what if it's not? Nowhere in the Bible does it say "God made Earth in the center of the universe."

If I had to guess, I'd say we could be somewhere NEAR the center, since we see about an even number of stars all around us, but I certaintly wouldn't say we were at the exact center.

However the Bible DOES say, "For in six days, the Lord God made the heavens and the earth and all that in is them."

In numerous places in the Bible, things are refered to from the point of the Earth, like the sunrise and sunset. So when God says "evening and morning the first day," it's obvious that it means evening and morning with respect to the Earth. What else does evening and morning refer to? Those terms have no meaning otherwise.

[ProfessorAlan]

Just that I don't know why you insist on an Earth-centric view of the first few days ... I know it's not exactly apples and oranges, but insisting on an Earth-centric view of the cosmos a few centuries ago proved to lead to bad theology.

[Tommie Lyn]

How do you know that? Other than your interpretation being necessary to maintain the 6-day old-earth scenario, I mean.

This is the viewpoint I was referring to a few posts back, when I wrote (modified slightly):

"The insistence that God (for whom a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day) had to write Genesis as Earth-centered (so a 24-hours day makes sense even though the celestial bodies that determine the lenght of our day had not been created yet) strikes me as the same mistake that our earlier brothers and sisters made in their insistence that the Earth must be at the center of the universe, since the creation of Earth and man was the pinnacle of His creation, it must be the center of universe, despite what the science says. Except of course that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, despite what that viewpoint/paradigm taught us must be.

That viewpoint/paradigm led to wrong conclusions then, and I believe it does now, as well. "
Exactly, Prof.

[Tommie Lyn]

What does Earth being/not being at the center of the universe have to do with how long God took to create the universe?

I believe you are missing the Professor's point (and please correct me if I misstate this, Prof). The same mindset which led people centuries ago to believe that the earth was the center of the universe to the point that they would not tolerate any other viewpoint, seems to be the same kind of mindset that refuses to consider that each of the six days of creation might not have been a 24 hour day.


We don't know if the Earth is at the center or not; so what if it is? And so what if it's not? Nowhere in the Bible does it say "God made Earth in the center of the universe."
And nowhere in the Bible does it say that the first day was 24 hours, either.

The heavenly bodies which define our 24 hour days were not in existence on the first day -- there was nothing to give the sunset and the sunrise until the fourth "day."

However the Bible DOES say, "For in six days, the Lord God made the heavens and the earth and all that in is them."
True. But it still does not say how long those six days were.

What else does evening and morning refer to? Those terms have no meaning otherwise.
Yes, they do. Those terms have meaning other than reference to a 24 hour period of time. For instance, we often refer to an era as "the day of" something -- the "day of" the horse and carriage.

There are regularly made references to the beginning of something as "the morning" of it, meaning, the beginning period. And we refer to the waning of a period of time as "the evening," as when we say the last years of old age are "the evening" of life.

[melw]

I only skimmed hte discussion so may have missed something. the Bible has to be looked at doing it's own interpretation.

It was obvious when Jesus was talking literally and when he was atlking in stories(parables).

With Genesis, the first seven days are written with time. (day and night). I think this is important as we understand the relationship with Sabbath and Man. I don't have much time to write much more.

But why should we say the Bible is literal or not? Why is this an issue? God is who we believe and trust in. He had given us the importnat facts. The seven day creation, the laws to follow, the story of his life, the story of redemption. The message of his resurrection and coming again. Pray and God will make it clear to you.

MEL

[ProfessorAlan]

Good points, Tommie Lyn.

I just don't think it's ever wise to think we can pin God down on the things of time ... our perspective of time as humans is so limited by the brevity of our lives, which are gone like a puff of wind. From the view of eternity, the concepts of "an age," "a generation," and "soon" are radically different that from our puny place here, trapped in time.

Jesus said He was coming soon ... 2,000 years ago! No human would ever consider 2,000 years (and I think it could easily be thousands of more years) as "soon." But to God, 2,000 years, 5,000 years, 50,000 years, whatever it ends up being, is indeed "soon."

To Him, all time is "soon."

[Paul.Chernoch]

Tiptoe. Tip. Tip. Tip.

Coming in very late to this thread, I have little to add, except to expand upon an idea that someone introduced early on. The creation story certainly was put there to demote the pagan Gods and put them in their place: the sun, the moon, the stars - none are the origin of life and the universe. The story of the Exodus demonstrated a similar purpose, in that each of the plagues tormented the people of Egypt with pains related to the gods they worshipped: the Nile, frogs, cattle, the sun, etc.

In Genesis, Satan's pride is his downfall, and he caught mankind in it. He taught us that we could become like God.

The church has over the centuries paid a price for allowing Greek thought to infiltrate its theology. But none of those things was fatal: the Bible did not require the conclusions of Greek science. Eventually superior scientific learning overthrew those ideas, but orthodox theological teaching remained. (Consider how many other religions must answer for their positions on issues like whether women have souls, or blacks or women are equal to whites and men, or slavery is just - distorted churches allowed these things, but Holy Scripture rejects them, yet the Koran and other religious writings have them embedded deeply.)

Evolution is different. It strongly contradicts many formulations of Christian doctrine, even if you remove Genesis 1-11.

So my thought is this: what god have we substituted today for worship of animals, the sun, the moon and the stars? What god must scripture challenge and refute and oppose? Man himself, and his mind. Since sin came about because man valued his intellect and ability over God's, I believe that the most essential heresy that the bible was written to oppose was man's worship of himself. In order to do that, God most certainly had to include sufficient information related to the natural world (whether concerning the Creation, the Flood, or some other natural phenomena) to contradict false science.

Many religions were and are based upon false and concocted human histories - so the Bible had to present true history.

Modern atheistic religion is based upon false natural history - so the Bible had to present true natural history. Incomplete? Yes. Subject to interpretation? Yes. But true and concrete and demonstrably incompatible with that which it was written to refute.

The bible was written a long time ago, but God designed it so that it would answer the tough challenges facing mankind throughout all history. We live today, and if it does not have a sword for us to wield against today's lofty arguments, then it is faulty.

I do have views about which theories of origins I favor. But explaining them is not as important to me as stating that I believe the bible MUST address science's false claims with its own truths. There is poetry, and metaphor, and simile, and secret symbols to be found in it. But there is also a summary of true events, rationally constructed, capable of being understood and tested in ways that the poetic cannot.

- Paul