The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

Many are. Others are well informed, ethical, educated and sincere.

There are uneducated, lying, fruitcakes on the evolution side of things too.

The difference is that in one community, those folks are denounced while in the other community, they are lifted up. And yes, we believe it to be the opposite community that does each.

 

"Though I disagree with you on this matter, I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is not relevant to salvation and every one of us here assert God as the Creator of everything whether we believe in six days or accept 13.7 billion years. I wish everyone could keep that in mind. This can digress into questioning of faith, motives and salvation fairly quickly. I think that in reality you will see many different reasons from those of each side who choose to participate in these discussions and who find them either important or interesting or both."

Right on

 

Okay, I'll do the verse-by-verse that OldRegular seems to be after.

TEs believe this too. This verse does not say that there were no intermediate processes. For instance, God creating by his word does not mean dirt wasn't used. If you interpret this passage to rule out intermediate processes, you force it to contradict Genesis 2 (as well as creation itself).

TEs believe these verses too. In fact, on this forum, TEs seem to be more consistent with this. Many times YECs fall into the fallacy of only giving God glory for what was originally made during the six days, while everything that's come about since is said to only be due to "natural processes" that God is not involved with. TEs are more likely to see God's hand in making everything that exists, much the way the psalmist was also able to see God's hand in how his body formed (Psalm 139:13-16) and not just in how Adam's body was formed. In brief, TEs are less likely to see nature as something autonomous from God.

Probably at least half of the TEs on this forum accept a literal Adam and Eve. I'm on the fence myself. Regardless of whether Adam and Eve were individuals or representative of more humans, they were still real, and neither view undermines Jesus' words.

Probably more than half of the TEs on this forum accept the historicity of Noah and the flood, but believe the flood was local. A local flood could certainly still provide an example of the coming of the Son of man. In fact, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was also used as such an example in the exact same context (Luke 17:26-30), and nobody claims that destruction was global.

Nobody takes that completely literally. Adam was not the son of God in the way that Jesus is the son of God. Jesus' sonship implies deity while Adam's sonship does not.

Also, there's evidence that genealogies sometimes skip generations. In Acts 7:6, it says that Abraham's descendents would be subject to others who would "enslave them and afflict them four hundred years." This was the time between Jacob and Moses. There are two genealogies that trace this time, one for Moses, and another for Joshua. Moses was four generations from Jacob (Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses; Exodus 6:16-20). Joshua was twelve generations from Jacob (Joseph, Ephraim, Beriah, Rephah, Resheph, Telah, Tahan, Ladan, Ammihud, Elishama, Nun, Joshua; 1 Chronicles 7:23-27). Since Joshua was one generation later than Moses, we can subtract one from his list. That leaves us with four generations for one line and eleven for the other, and both spanned 430 years, rounded by Stephen to 400. In other words, Moses' ancestors on average bore their child in the lineage when they were 100 years old, while Joshua's bore theirs on average at 36 years. It seems quite unreasonable that people living during the same time frame would have such a great difference in child-bearing ages. It is more likely that Moses' genealogy has significant gaps.

Based on that, it seems entirely reasonable that Jesus would be connected to Adam, whether Adam was an individual or representative of the first humans.

The points made in these passages holds equally true whether Adam was an individual or representative of the first humans. And again, about half the TEs on this board believe in a literal, individual Adam.

An analogy does not have to be to a historical event. Jesus often used analogies to fictional events or parables to make his point. I don't believe the story in Genesis 3 is fiction, but this passage is no help in establishing that it isn't.

If you completely understand what 1 Timothy 2:13-15 means, including why someone who was willfully disobedient makes a better leader than someone who was deceived, and how women will be saved through childbearing, then you have me at a disadvantage. To me, that is about the most obscure passage in the New Testament.

This passage does support that Noah was a historical person, but it doesn't prove a global flood. The word "world" is often used to refer to less than the entire planet.

The "old world" and the "world of the ungodly". Interesting! Some evidence that the whole planet is not meant when Scripture refers to the world. The old world did pass away due to the flood, but that doesn't mean we live on a different planet now. The world isn't the entire globe.

Again, this supports a historical Noah, but not a global flood.

Yes, I believe Genesis 1-11 as well. I just think you've misinterpreted it in some places.

 

If the flood was not global, what was the purpose of 120 years forewarning and instructions to build an ark, when it would have been easier and quicker to move to an area not affected by the flood?

 

Where do you get 120 years from? Genesis 5:32 says Noah was 500 years old when he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth. Genesis 7:6 says Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. As far as I know, we aren't told how much time elapsed between the birth of Noah's sons and God's command to build an ark. God says that man's days will be 120 years in Genesis 6:3, but again there's no mention of how many years pass before God speaks to Noah. One clue that some time has passed is that Noah's sons have grown up and have wives (see Genesis 6:18).

Anyway, perhaps God didn't tell Noah to leave to another land because Noah was to be a witness to those who were left (see 2 Peter 2:5). Noah couldn't be a preacher of righteousness to them if he moved away from that land.

 

As you point out the 120 years is found in Gen 6:3. If God made that decision is it likely He kept it to himself? Noah cold have begun his building before his sons were born or after, It doesn't make a difference. We do know that Shem was born 98 years before the flood(Gen 11:10) He certainly would have been able to help his father build the ark. As to your comment about Noah being a witness to those who were left- there weren't any survivors other than Noah and his family. He was a preacher of righteousness before the flood came. The flood was definitely world wide, not only does the Bible say it was (Gen 6:7; 7:17-24), but the earth shows the evidence of it. (Grand canyon, shells on top of Mt. Everest etc.)
Again I ask if the flood was ocal what was the purpose of the ark? It seems to me God would have not only Noah move, but all of those animals also.

 

"Don’t you find it odd that those much vaunted scientists in which you put your Faith can view a few acres of the surface of Mars and declare that there was a planet wide flood while looking at the entire geologic history of the earth deny the same."

Please support your assertions that scientists think there was a global Mars flood.

"Have the scientists ever explained the presence of mammoths in Siberia with undigested vegetation in their bellies? A world wide flood, followed by a change in the earth’s climate, is the logical explanation."

How is that? The mammoths floated around for a year in water and were then flash frozen? This left undigested food?

 

Oldreg,


Really - you should argue the facts and not make rude statements about the faith of others.

Don’t you find it odd that those much vaunted scientists in which you put your Faith...

As we've said many times - a belief that science can teach us does not equal faith in man above God.

Mercury, don’t try to salve your conscience by deluding yourself that you believe Genesis 1-11

Another attack on the beliefs of another. Mercury does believe Genesis. He just doesn't believe what various humans have insisted regarding it.

Why must YEC arguments be full of this sort of willful misrepresentation of the opposite sides? It only serves to hurt the credibility of the YEC stance.

Just stick to the facts and stop insinuating things about other brothers which are not true.

 

Are "TE's" all Liberals? Just curious.

BTW, I'm not a TE.

 

Not my interesting theory...

"Have the scientists ever explained the presence of mammoths in Siberia with undigested vegetation in their bellies? A world wide flood, followed by a change in the earth’s climate, is the logical explanation."

Maybe I missed what you mean. Could you explain how frozen mammoths point specifically to a young earth and support your assertion about scientists claiming a global Mars flood?

 

Oldreg,

Evolution is accepted by most atheists - but that doesn't mean that a theist cannot subscribe to it.

My assertion is that you should argue against evolution and the science behind it, while NOT making remarks about the faith of other believers.

Secondly, I don't intend to make any scripture "go away". The fact that NT writers refer to the OT neither helps nor hurts the case for YEC, OEC, or TE. Writers in NT times were not likely to have had the scientific knowledge, or even the curiosity, to speculate about the physical genesis of the earth. The OT revealed theological truth and the NT refers to it.

 

Definitely not. Trust me, if I ever propose marriage to someone, it won't be you.

I may have more time to respond later. Just wanted to get that cleared up right away before any rumours spread.

 

My definition of a Biblical liberal is one who denies the inerrancy of Scripture. Don't know what yours is. </font>[/QUOTE]The same thing.

But I was talking about "political" liberals. I'm sorry you don't share my sense of humour.

 

We have scriptural testimony that God didn't keep it to himself. Noah found favour with God, and at some point (we aren't told when) God provided Noah and his family with a way to be saved from the flood.

Yes, he was a witness before the flood came. That was my point. He couldn't do that if he moved away.

As I said, perhaps God had Noah stay put so he could be a witness to those around him before the flood came.