The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

There are two accounts with different explicit language. In one, God's speech is effective in creating humanity. In the other, God forms man from dust and breathes into him, and later forms Eve from his side. I think the two are complementary as long as we don't force them to be historical. If one does try to force the accounts together into a history account, one ends up with God merely talking to himself before actually doing something. That approach does not do justice to the power of God's speech as Genesis 1 (and other passages) describes it.

I think it is better to recognize that both our creation by God's word and our creation from dust are metaphors that reveal something beyond human comprehension in pictures we can understand. Both pictures are true, just as all of Jesus' illustrations about the kingdom of God are true.

Yes, and the dust is just as explicit as God's breath. But, I don't think God has literal breath, and I think there's a play on words happening here because "Spirit" and "wind" are the same Hebrew word. I think God breathing into Adam represents man receiving the image of God. Adam was God-breathed and Scripture is God-breathed, but in both cases this is a picture that indicates something beyond our comprehension, not an objective scientific statement.

Yes, humans were sexual beings from the beginning. Science says the same thing. I agree that Scripture does not reveal all the scientific details of humanity's origin, but I don't think that rules out what science can reveal. God tells Adam that "from [dust] you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return" (Genesis 3:19). I don't see this as ruling out the various steps that take place between a person dying and their body returning to dust.

I think it's important to realize that we are but dust as well -- that doesn't just apply to Adam. We are made from dust too, and that doesn't rule out what science can tell us about conception and human development.

Just like Genesis 3 is explicit about the serpent talking because it is "more crafty than any other beast of the field", contrary to theories about it being possessed by Satan or being a form of Satan.

But perhaps we should allow the rest of God's revelation to shed light on what we read in Genesis.

 

Thanks, OldReg. As usual, when you quote Scripture instead of atheists, I agree with you.

Yes, that's a great verse. Note that Malachi doesn't limit God's human creations to Adam and Eve, but he says that one God has created us. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. The existence of natural processes to explain our conception and development does not change the fact that we are a creation of God!

I also appreciate the rest of the verses you quoted, including those that make clear that God made everything, not just what existed 6,000 years ago, and not just what Genesis 1 itemizes. And, Psalm 148 is another wonderful affirmation that God created by his command -- which is in no way contradicted by the intermediary means described elsewhere in Scripture and revealed in nature itself.

 

Who else could it have been and why is satanic/demonic possession so unlikely?

"He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it"

"And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly"

"And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea"

HankD

 

Yes, Bro Mercury you do have that witness.

And you make a decent point, for instance: pregnancy is not a random/chance process but follows predefined and predetermined rules.

Although I disagree concerning TE vs. creation, I see your point.


HankD

 

The mechanism of evolution, natural selection, has never been proven and is now discredited.

 

I do think the serpent represents Satan. But, the reason Satanic/demonic possession is unlikely based on a literal, historical reading of Genesis 3 is that it says the serpent spoke because it was crafty, not because it was possessed. Not only is Satan left unmentioned, but another reason is given for the serpent's speech.

I think that's because of the type of literature Genesis 3 is -- a type of fable -- and not because Satan wasn't involved. So, I see the serpent as representing Satan, the tree of life as representing God's sustaining power, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as representing experiential knowledge of right and wrong, Adam and Eve as representing the first humans, etc. I read the account as being closer to Jotham's fable in Judges 9:7-15 or Jehoash's fable in 2 Kings 14:9: an imaginative story that relates true events through highly figurative means. I think Romans 1:20-25 recounts the same fall of humanity in a more prosaic form.

Yes, it followed predetermined rules, but some steps appear to be random, such as how DNA from the two parent cells combine. I think the randomness is real, but it doesn't prevent God from doing what he wants to do.

Thanks.

 

So when a lion chases a herd of antelopes, it isn't the less fit that are more likely to get eaten before they have many offspring? When trees grow in a dense forest, it isn't the ones that do a better job of getting sunlight or being more efficient with less sunlight that will survive and reproduce more?

Even most young-earth creationists have admitted that natural selection is a real force. They just dispute how much it could accomplish over long periods of time, or dispute how the variation comes about that must exist for natural selection to do anything. Even the oft-maligned peppered moths are a valid example of natural selection. While both light-coloured and dark-coloured moths existed in the population, the dark-coloured became more prevalent when that colouring allowed them to better blend in with their environment, and the light-coloured became more prevalent when their environment changed to make that colouring more effective for blending in. That is natural selection.

Since natural selection does not even deal with how variation is added to the gene pool (how the light- and dark-coloured moths came about in the first place), but only says that the environment will multiply the most beneficial variations, I don't see why anyone would dispute it, even if they didn't accept evolution.

 

Evolutionists dispute it as a mechanism for bringing about permanent change in a species.

At the micro-biological level, Behe has conclusively shown that natural selection as a mechanism for change is an impossibility.

Species can't change into other species by natural selection. Evolution is impossible.

 

"At the micro-biological level, Behe has conclusively shown that natural selection as a mechanism for change is an impossibility."

One, you need to show how he has done so. I don't think that he has convinced many people.

Two, you do realize that Behe accepts common descent including the shared descent of humans and the other apes, right?

 

That's his claim, but I don't know how he can say that when he shows that at the cellular level, organism are irreducibly complex.

He talks about chasms that can't be bridged, etc.

I think Behe is trying to save his job or credibiltiy in academic circles when he confesses that he still believes in common descent.

 

One more thing Mercury, if you are refering to Genesis 1:26 then this is in all likelihood the Trinity taking counsel together.

And God (Elohim - Pl.) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

There are two plurals in Hebrew: dual(two) and plural (more than two, which is the case with Elohim).

Then Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

In this passage the connective name of God "LORD-God" (YHVH-Elohim) Yaweh (The Tetragrammaton)-Elohim is used.

The Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is a concatenation of all the tenses of the verb "to be" and means the Eternal One.

The persons of Elohim are therefore all eternal, the Father, the Logos and the Spirit took counsel together.

HankD

 

"That's his claim, but I don't know how he can say that when he shows that at the cellular level, organism are irreducibly complex."

His grand example is the bacterial flagellum. Yet it can be shown that simpler examples of flagellum exist and that many of the pieces have other uses in the cell and were likely coopted for use in the flagellum.

 

Yes, I think that's a possibility too (either that or an angelic counsel, as Job 38:7 may suggest). But, my point was that God's speech is effectual, so an interpretation that makes God's speech merely discussion (or counsel) before acting is probably wrong.

Instead, I think both God creating by speaking and God creating by forming from ground describe same thing. They are not consecutive statements, but complementary pictures. If you treat them as consecutive, it contradicts Hebrews 11:3 and similar passages.

Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

 

This is why I included the Genesis 3 verse which uses the title LORD-God (YHVH-Elohim) all the persons in the Elohim Godhead are eternal (the meaning of YHVH) therefore it is unlikely that the passage is referring to angels which are created beings.

I don’t treat them as consecutive but I haven’t completely cracked that nut as to their being complimentary (to my own satisfaction).


HankD