Can Creation according to Genesis be honestly taught as Science

[Jim1999]

Helen, It may disagree with your specific understanding of scripture, but not with mine. To my thinking it is consonant with scripture and with science. On the authorship of Genesis, it is up for speculation, but generally attributed to Moses, as much as some other books, scholars have attributed to certain authors, but the autographs themselves suggest other writers, either dictated or scribed. It does not really matter, and doesnt change the word one iota.

There are far too many shifts and squeezes to make the Bible fit fundamentalist concepts without regard for history and consistency throughout. If I couldn't balance my theories with scripture, I wouldn't espouse them. Remember, I believe the Bible. I am not the enemy.

On the local flood, it is not about the animals. It is about Noah and his family and their grasp of God and obedience to Him.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Helen]

It has nothing to do with 'fundamentalist concepts.' It has everything to do with God knowing how to communicate with man in a straightforward way. There is enough time spent regarding the animals for the Flood to be about the animals, too. And since it was God who brought them to Noah, there must have been a reason. If not the biblical reason, what else can you make up?

The reason for the Flood is given as man's wickedness and violence. If the Flood was local, we have some interesting problems, biblically:

1. Were only the people in that region wicked and violent?

2. Were they the only ones who lived so long originally and then their ages simply melted down to match the rest of humanity who didn't get caught in this 'local flood'?

3. Were ALL the springs of the deep only in that area of the earth?

4. Since Genesis 10 lists the nations of the world as descending from the three sons of Noah, were there others descended from other people not mentioned?

5. Did Jesus not know what He was talking about?

6. Did Peter not know what he was talking about in his second epistle (chapter 3)?

I guess my approach IS a fundamental approach. I do believe the Bible has the fundamentals right. I believe it has the other stuff right, too...

No, Jim, you are not the enemy, but you are, in essence, repeating him in his temptation to Eve when he said, "Did God REALLY say....? Think for yourself...."

Thinking for myself is a great thing -- until it disagrees with God's clear statements. Then, if I don't agree, I am the one who is wrong. Same with you. Same with everyone. God is the one who is right. His Word is not an allegory, not a myth, not an old wives' tale. It is real history where it presents itself to be history. Genesis presents itself as eyewitness history start to finish.

 

[Jim1999]

And you fit all these events into 7000 years! Incredible and impossible. The timeline just doesn't fit. Not everything is in the Bible. It is primarily the trail of redemption for God's chosen people Israel, and then to His people, the Israel of God, His church. There are other events not included in the sacred scriptures as we have them.

In the Old Testament, there is mention of whole nations being slaughtered, man, woman and child, and yet they appear in other scriptures. You see, not all were slaughtered, but that group affecting Israel in God's timeline. The rest of the nation were incidental to God's plan.

Again, it comes down to interpretation of events as they have been recorded. Even with Adam and Eve, we search tradition to understand that they had some 27 other children, and where did their wives comes from? They came from other nations that coexisted with the three sons of Adam, but not important to God's message to include their existence by source.

Profane history and tradition provide some answers, albeit much of that too is speculation.

I have no problem with the scriptures being aligned with evolution and natural history as a valid source of existence in time.

Theologians, who puport to use the same scriptures, come up with varied eschatalogical viewpoints, and each with the same vigor and conviction. The same is true of Calvinism, Arminianism and everything inbetween. It is not inconceivable that the same is true of the historical lines.

I will carry on my ministry with the sure things and proclaim from the pulpit the sovereign grace of God, and leave these speculative matters to common interest and not dogma.

The original question about the alignment of science with Genesis remains yes. The problem is not with the book, but with the interpretation and application.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Helen]

It's more like 8000 years, and yes, it all happened in that amount of time.

 

[BobRyan]

Helen - you need to choose between placing your trust in the "details" of God's Word -- vs accepting the speculations of humanism as it "imagines" the way the past "would work without God".

And apparenly you have chosen God's Word! How could you??!! Surely science is the "domain" of Humanism and anathema to God - is it not?!!

Or - might "it just be true" that God is HIMSELF the greatest scientist of all!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2Pet 1
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ""This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased''
18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

</font>[/QUOTE]In this passage, Peter was talking about himself and the apostles being eye-witnesses.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 2 Peter 1 -

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

</font>[/QUOTE]This is Peter reinforcing the inspiration of scripture, that is isn't simply man's work.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The assumption is that GOD SAW it - and that God is ABLE to SHOW what HE saw to others - so that it is not merely MAN speaking - but GOD the EYE WITNESS.

I'm glad you recognize that it is assumptions that you are making.

Nowhere does Peter say that Genesis is written in the first person as eye-witness accounts. I lift up Peter's actual words saying that the bible is God speaking to man through the Holy Spirit, which I have stated myself numerous times in this thread. Most of the time, like Genesis, God does so in the third person, not as first person eye-witness accounts.

 

[Helen]

Genesis itself lists itself as eyewitness accounts:

Gen. 5:1 -- This is the written account of Adam's line.

Gen. 6:9 -- This is the account of Noah

Gen. 10:1 -- This is the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah's sons

Gen. 11:10 -- This is the account of Shem

Gen. 11:27 -- This is the account of Terah

Gen. 25:19 -- This is the account of Abraham's son, Isaac (this account has Ishmael's account included at the end of it, as marked by Gen. 25:12-18, which has the author at the beginning to avoid confusion with the tablet of Isaac.)

Gen. 37:2 -- This is the account of Jacob (again this account has within it the account of Esau, which is chapter 36 in its entirety).

These were written accounts, or generations, signed off by the authors at the end of each account as was the custom in those days. Moses, being in a position of high authority in Egypt and then leader of the Israelites, would have come into possession of those tablets. He colated and edited them, interspersing a few editorial comments, such as the one which comprises Gen. 2:5-6 (it is interesting to read Genesis 2:4 and skip directly to verse 7, as this way you will get the original sentence as written by Adam.)

In other words, Peter does not have to say this is eyewitness accounts. Genesis says it.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
Did the Creator merely "observe creation" or did He MAKE it?

He made creation and observed it was good.

However Genesis is not a first person record of that observation but a third person one. </font>[/QUOTE]I think those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible (that it is the Word of God) would say it is both first and third person.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

Yes, Genesis 1-11 is a series of eyewitness accounts and may be taught as such.

Helen, this is nothing but a hunch on your part. And, of course, the textual evidence as well as known biological facts prove that Gen. 6-11 is NOT an eyewitness account. Anyone who would teach such false information in a classroom would be guilty of a crime against humanity.

Which my husband and I do, with plenty of real, actual science to back it up.

This statement is absolutely false! And that it is absolutely false has been abundantly documented over and over and over again in other threads on this message board.

In response to Craig's post above:

1. There is no evidence aside from interpretations that any protobacteria was ever able to evolve into a bear, fern, moth, or anything else. Mutations ALWAYS reduce specificity and there is no way evolution could proceed with a progressive lack of specificity!

This is absolute nonsense and anyone with even a basic knowledge of biology knows for an incontrovertible fact that it is nonsense!

2. The size of the Ark was not the point regarding water displacement, the shape of it was. For instance, we live in Grants Pass, Oregon, where a major tourist attraction in the summer is jetboat rides on the Rogue River. Those boats displace only 18" of water and yet can safely carry 50+ people at a time.

Fact: It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY boat, REGARDLESS OF ITS SHAPE, to float if the weight of the boat plus its cargo is greater than the weight of the water that it displaces. Jet boats are no exception—their speed allows them to glide over the water rather than float. Even if Noah’s Ark was jet propelled as Helen is apparently claiming it was, it would have SUNK long before the cargo was fully loaded—that is, unless Helen is suggesting that Noah’s Ark was traveling at five times the speed of sound during the time that the animals were being loaded!

3. The Ark was plenty big enough to carry samples from each KIND of animal (way different from species!).

No, the Ark was not even a small fraction of the necessary size to carry the load that is depicted by a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. ANYONE who has completed 6th grade math and sixth grade science can do the calculations for themselves and they will find out for themselves that Helen has posted a fictitious claim here. Please note that this argument regarding species and kinds is the exact same and fictitious argument used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and has absolutely no basis of fact. And Helen KNOWS that it has no basis of fact because that has been proven many times on this very message board in replies to Helen’s fictitious claim.

Since all animals on the Ark were hebivorous prior to the flood, there was no need to worry about them eating each other!

This is nothing but a monstrous lie from the very pit of hell! But even if it were true, that would require that thousands of species of herbivores EVOLVED at rocket speed into carnivores, and that belief 100% contradicts Helen’s previous claim in this same thread that, “Mutations ALWAYS reduce specificity and there is no way evolution could proceed with a progressive lack of specificity!” Why can’t creationists tell the truth? Because the truth PROVES that Genesis 6-11 is NOT an historical account of an actual event.

Partitions would have been useful, however, for a couple of other reasons: to keep weight evenly distributed, and to keep the big guys from accidently trampling the little guys. Partitions would have also helped by allowing some of the animals to go into partial or full hibernation during that year. Whether or not they did, I have no idea, but if they did, the partitions would have given them the space they needed.

This portion of Helen’s post proves beyond any shadow of a doubt than Helen is posting ridiculous nonsense! Partitions do NOT add space—they take up space and add further weight to the boat!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

4. It does not take nearly the skill to compress hay and such into pellets as it does to build an Ark! In addition, animals under stress, which they probably were at least some of the time, rarely eat as much as in non-stress times. Keeping in mind that the average size was probably no larger than a sheep, and perhaps smaller, there was plenty of room for plenty of food for all on board.

Absolute nonsense! ALL ANIMALS MUST consume a minimal number of calories to survive, and any animals that did not would have died! The weight of the bare minimum amount of food would have been MANY times heavier than the weight of the water displaced by the Ark. In other words, the weight of the food alone would have caused the Ark to sink IMEDIATELY!!!

5. Many of the animals would undoubtedly have preferred fresh food, but they would have been able to get along without it for a year, surviving on dried and compressed foodstuffs. This is still possible.

These statements are absolutely false! Very many animals have very strict dietary requirements that could have been met ONLY by SPECIFIC fresh fruits and leaves, requiring large trees and shrubs to have been planted into HUGE containers aboard the Ark. And, of course, fresh meat would have been an absolute requirement for many of the animals! Helen taught high school biology—so undoubtedly she knows this for a fact!

6. The Bible says distinctly that only land and air animals were on the Ark. Fish had plenty of water outside of it!

What an absolutely monstrous misrepresentation of the facts to post on a Christian message board! VERY MANY kinds of VERY large fish are extremely sensitive to the level of salt and minerals in the water in which they live, and the flood would have changed the level of the salt and minerals in the water. Therefore, we KNOW, FOR AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT, that it would have been ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to bring a pair of EVERY ONE of these kinds of HUGE fish aboard the Ark and maintain them in aquariums that would be so heavy that it would be absolutely impossible for a wooden ship to contain EVEN ONE of them!!!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

7. Land plants would have mostly been destroyed but there were several means of repopulation of plants after the Flood: from seeds that were part of the foodstuff on the Ark and not consumed that year, from seeds and spores not destroyed by the Flood but preserved on floating vegetation mats (which still can be seen after monsoons today and provide good evidence of what was possible), from seeds preserved whole in the guts of some of the animals, just like today.

ALL of the animals aboard the Ark would have needed food AFTER the waters abated and there would necessarily have been enough food aboard the Ark to maintain them until the earth was revegetated—a process that takes, in many cases, a decade or longer.

8. There would have been enough food on the Ark to sustain the animals for the entire year, as God required. The animals were not released until an OLIVE leave was brought back. Hard seed plants grow much more slowly than grasses, so there would have already been abundant grasses by the time the animals were released. Those animals which now had to depend on flesh since their protein-rich plant foods were decimated would have found immediate meals available in the massive populations of rodents which would have been breeding on the Ark for a year (poor Mrs. Noah!).

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS!!! ONLY certain omnivores can switch between specialized vegetarian diets and fresh meat from rats!

9. What we see today in dietary needs of herbivores is the result of several thousand years of reduced ability to vary in the populations and reduced specificity due to mutations. The earlier animals would have been much more robust and been able to survive on more different kinds of vegetation than our pickier eaters today.

JUST EXACTLY HOW FAST DO YOU SUSPPOSE EVOLUTION CAN TAKE PLACE? The scale of evolution that you are proposing here takes tens of thousands of years! And not only is there ABOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that such a thing occurred; there is abundant evidence that it DID NOT!!!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

10. There would have been no problem with releasing the animals all in the same place as the carnivores were not yet used to hunting, but rather were used to being fed by the family on the Ark. This would have given the larger grazing animals plenty of time to move away. In addition, we have no rcord of Noah knowing ahead of time how long the time on the Ark would last, and so there is no reason to suspect that he only had food for one exact year. He probably had more than that, and animals off the Ark were still able to eat the last of the food for awhile.

Just how much weight do you suppose the Ark could hold? Your points are getting to be more and more ridiculous and prove more and more conclusively that the story of Noah’s Ark could NOT possibly be an historic account of an actual event!

11. Noah did not have to collect the animals. God caused the animals to come to him. Gen. 7:8

Penguins can’t fly and kangaroos can’t swim! Have you ever looked at a globe or an atlas? The earth is a whole lot bigger than your Aunt Gertrude’s hobby farm!

12. Yes, all old habitats were destroyed by the Flood. There were a bunch of new ones to be filled.

And, as you yourself know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact, many habitats take decades to re-establish once they are destroyed.

13. People were not necessary for the habitats to be restored. God grows plants just fine all by Himself.

The very large majority of habitats are NOT capable of self-restoration. And very many species of animals are absolutely dependent upon these habitats for survival!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

14. There was plenty of water to cover all the earth. It is in the ocean basins today.

The ocean basins are no deeper now than they were 10,000 years ago!

15. I doubt very much there are any real sightings of the Ark. So far all have been shown to be the result of natural formations and 'tricks' played by the light at certain times of day. Since there was no wood to build from after the Flood, it seems to me that it would have been silly for Noah to leave that perfectly good bit of construction alone and not dismantled it to use the wood for new homes and such.

If Noah had an I.Q. of 60 or better he would have known been than to try to haul the wood from the Ark down Mount Ararat over all the sharp rocks and ice!

16. Mt. Ararat (if that is indeed where the Ark landed) was not as sharp and as high as now until the time of Peleg, several hundred years later, when the continental movement caused the crumpling of the earth's crust, giving rise to the highest and sharpest of our current mountain ranges.

This is the most ridiculous and bizarre nonsense that I have ever heard of—and my three-year-old grandson comes up with some real whoppers! I most sincerely hope that you don’t actually believe such a tripe!

The Flood is not a matter, by the way, of man's rationality, but of God's judgment and of the natural forces He used to cause it. It was a real event. Noah and family were real people. The Ark was real, the disaster was real, the salvation through it was real. Jesus also referred to it as a real event.

Helen,

You have, in his post that I am quoting from, more than amply demonstrated for all us the absolute nonsense that one has to resort to in order to defend the silly notion that the story of Noah’s Ark is an historic account of an actual event.

A note in closing: When Christians publicly argue for the nonsense that you are arguing for, they give the world the impression that Christians are nothing more that intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia. What an abomination!!! How many countless thousands of souls are burning in the fires of hell for eternity because some Christians “proved” to them that the claims of Christianity are the claims of lunacy?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
A note in closing: When Christians publicly argue for the nonsense that you are arguing for, they give the world the impression that Christians are nothing more that intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia. What an abomination!!! How many countless thousands of souls are burning in the fires of hell for eternity because some Christians “proved” to them that the claims of Christianity are the claims of lunacy?

1. I haven't read through everything Helen said, I'll admit that. I know that through the years I have known Helen, I have come to the conclusion that she has some really nutty ideas that I have always chalked up to her being from the West Coast (I know...that is an unfair assumption and I am working hard to change that idea with myself). But, my point to you, CBTS, is that the intellect and wisdom of lost people is not to drive or change the way we believe and live as Christians. Paul very clearly tells us that the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishimg, but we are to cling to that foolishness as it is salvation to us who believe.

2. Not a single person is burning in hell, or on their way to burning in hell because of nutty theories by Helen Setterfield (or anyone else for that matter). They are all there because of their sin.

3. There is at least one non-Christian scholar I have read who believed he had proven without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus faked his death with the help of his disciples. I am quite sure that there are probably those in the world who believe what he says is true. The Gospel did not cause their downfall and descent into hell. Their sin did.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[El_Guero]

the intellect and wisdom of lost people is not to drive or change the way we believe and live as Christians. Paul very clearly tells us that the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishimg, but we are to cling to that foolishness as it is salvation to us who believe.

Now that makes sence to someone that is saved. (and not from the west coast, east coast, mid america - just in case christians think different there)

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Helen:
Genesis itself lists itself as eyewitness accounts:

Gen. 5:1 -- This is the written account of Adam's line.

Gen. 6:9 -- This is the account of Noah

Gen. 10:1 -- This is the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah's sons

Gen. 11:10 -- This is the account of Shem

Gen. 11:27 -- This is the account of Terah

Gen. 25:19 -- This is the account of Abraham's son, Isaac (this account has Ishmael's account included at the end of it, as marked by Gen. 25:12-18, which has the author at the beginning to avoid confusion with the tablet of Isaac.)

Gen. 37:2 -- This is the account of Jacob (again this account has within it the account of Esau, which is chapter 36 in its entirety).

These were written accounts, or generations, signed off by the authors at the end of each account as was the custom in those days. Moses, being in a position of high authority in Egypt and then leader of the Israelites, would have come into possession of those tablets. He colated and edited them, interspersing a few editorial comments, such as the one which comprises Gen. 2:5-6 (it is interesting to read Genesis 2:4 and skip directly to verse 7, as this way you will get the original sentence as written by Adam.)

In other words, Peter does not have to say this is eyewitness accounts. Genesis says it.

Yes those are accounts. But they are third person accounts, not first person ones.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I think those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible (that it is the Word of God) would say it is both first and third person.

I'm not sure how something could be written in both the first person and the third person at the same time. I believe that the Bible is God's inspired, authoritative and trustworthy word to mankind. That doesn't mean I see a first person narrative when it is clearly written in the third person. Seeing a first person narrative when the text is clearly written as a third person one is a great example of eisegetically reading scripture to see things that we want to be there but aren't actually there. Hence the need for good hermeneutics.

[ October 05, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

[Helen]

They claim to be first person accounts, Dragon. Who are you to say they are wrong?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Helen:
They claim to be first person accounts, Dragon. Who are you to say they are wrong?

Nope, nothing wrong with the accounts. They are exactly what they say they are. That happens to be different from what you say they are.

 

[Helen]

Then who signed their accounts for them? Who plagiarized their material?