Can Creation according to Genesis be honestly taught as Science

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Scott J wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes but rejection of Genesis as a straight forward accounting of events is terribly inconvenient to those who presuppose naturalism and evolution.

The insistence by some very naïve Christians that Genesis is a straight forward accounting of events is terribly inconvenient for the Holy Spirit when He is trying to show a sinner that the Bible is a believable book.</font>[/QUOTE] I can only refer you to I Corinthians again.

A person must humble himself. God has no respect for human wisdom nor is He bound by it. If one is not willing to repent even to the point of leaving their preconceptions about science behind then they aren't humble enough.

God never said that we were free to change His Word in order to make it more palatable to people who think themselves wise or have been indoctrinated into the naturalistic explantion for origins.

Those Christians who are attempting, at all cost, to keep the Church in the dark ages apparently do not realize the consequences of their actions. But, come the judgment day, ….

... they will stand before God and say "I accepted your Word as you chose to present it. I didn't compromise by forcing the Bible to conform to the wisdom and philosophies of men."

The evolutionists however will have no answer when God asks why they rejected what His Word said because it contradicted a theory which has as a premise that all of nature must be explanable without God.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, with the evidence earlier given; I think we have to at least admit that if Genesis is literal, than the laws of the universe were vastly different back then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or that God at various times suspended natural law. If one believes in the resurrection then this should not be difficult to allow.

In either case, you no longer have a straightforward literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. A straightforward literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 has been absolutely proven to be incorrect because it depicts that which according to given natural laws could NOT have occurred.

</font>[/QUOTE]This comment makes no sense. A straight forward reading of Genesis neither precludes that natural law was previously different nor that God acted supernaturally.

NATURAL LAW DOES NOT GOVERN NOR LIMIT WHAT GOD CAN DO. PERIOD. Your last sentence is not only wrong it makes God an impotent bystander that cannot even communicate Himself effectively.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Joseph B. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Is God or his Word bound by natural law? What about the ressurection? Could that have occured according to natural law? Craig, I hate to say it, but the more you talk, the more you sound like a fellow of the Westar Institute.

Joseph,

God is bound by the limitations that He, by His sovereign will, has imposed upon Himself. Most fundamentally, God can do no wrong.</font>[/QUOTE] Correct. Which means He cannot lie. Therefore if He says something without giving any indication that He is not speaking literally... it is either true or He is lying.

The New Testament makes it expressly clear than the greatest miracle of all time was the resurrection of Christ. Genesis 6-11 makes it expressly clear that no miracles or violations of any natural laws were involved in the story of the Ark.

First, there were other miracles that superceded the laws of nature such as walking on water. So your whole idea about the God's own limitations upon Himself precluding a literal Genesis falls apart on principle.

Second, neither the resurrection account nor the flood account give God's mechanics for accomplishing what was done. We are simply told it happened. The flood account does not say that natural laws were not suspended or that Noah was not preserved supernaturally. You are making up another limitation upon God and His Word by arguing from silence.

Peter btw attributes the flood to a direct act by God.

Genesis 6-11, therefore, can NOT be an accurate historical account of an actual event. That much we know for certain.

Your logic is flawed and not even worthy of someone as intelligent as you are. You have not proven that the text precludes the supernatural therefore your "certainty" is imagined.

We can write off Genesis as being nothing but fiction, or we can seek to understand it more accurately as a part of the divinely inspired body of literature that we know as the Holy Bible.

Or we can recognize your fallacy of limited alternatives for what it is and accept that God is able to communicate for Himself and is in no way restricted by the incoherent argument you have presented here.

I choose to understand it more accurately as a part of the divinely inspired body of literature that we know as the Holy Bible.

You choose to favor any explanation of Genesis that allows you to maintain your belief in evolution. While I will accept reasonable explanations of science or even "I don't knows" that leave science in conformity with scripture.

It all goes back to which thing you think is more reliable. God's ability to express Himself accurately and understandably to men... letting us know contextually when things are not to be taken literally? (Oh btw, the NT affirms what we believe about Genesis and not what you believe... so you have to discount a whole lot more than 11 chapters to preserve evolution)

Or do you place more faith in man's intellectual ability to interpret nature? (BTW, the premise, naturalism, is not established by scripture but rather contradicts the example of scripture. Scripture contends that God has "violated" the laws of nature on many occasions)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

God never said that we were free to change His Word in order to make it more palatable to people who think themselves wise or have been indoctrinated into the naturalistic explantion for origins.

Ooooo...excellent point.

(BTW, the premise, naturalism, is not established by scripture but rather contradicts the example of scripture. Scripture contends that God has "violated" the laws of nature on many occasions)

Another good point.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

A person must humble himself. God has no respect for human wisdom nor is He bound by it. If one is not willing to repent even to the point of leaving their preconceptions about science behind then they aren't humble enough.

God desires that all men humble themselves before Him and give Him the credit for their ability to learn and get an education. Those who have chosen the sin of willful ignorance and yet who are so arrogant as to claim that they have more knowledge and understanding of God than those who have spent a lifetime of study in the Bible have no concept at all of humility.

God never said that we were free to change His Word in order to make it more palatable to people who think themselves wise or have been indoctrinated into the naturalistic explantion for origins.

God never said that we were free to despise the ability that He gave to us to learn and to reason. Those individuals who have been indoctrinated into the woefully and inexcusably ignorant interpretation of Genesis that we find among some Christians today, and who have been informed of the truth and the ridiculousness of their error but who have choose to remain in it, are without excuse and shall answer for it before God Himself.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

... they will stand before God and say "I accepted your Word as you chose to present it. I didn't compromise by forcing the Bible to conform to the wisdom and philosophies of men."

And God may respond by saying, “Thou fool! Did I not give you the opportunity to get an education so that you could understand My Word? And did you not despise that opportunity and arrogantly reply to Me that you did not need either knowledge or wisdom to understand My Word?”

The evolutionists however will have no answer when God asks why they rejected what His Word said because it contradicted a theory which has as a premise that all of nature must be explanable without God.

Those men and women who have chosen to honor God and His Word by devoting a lifetime to studying the Bible and God’s creation shall have no need to answer God. Those men and women, however, who were so very arrogant that they rejected God’s offer of an education and told God that they already knew it all shall have a whole lot of explaining to do!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

This comment makes no sense. A straight forward reading of Genesis neither precludes that natural law was previously different nor that God acted supernaturally.

My comment may make no sense to those who have despised the opportunity to get a good education, but it makes VERY good sense to those have said yes to God’s offer of an education.

NATURAL LAW DOES NOT GOVERN NOR LIMIT WHAT GOD CAN DO. PERIOD. Your last sentence is not only wrong it makes God an impotent bystander that cannot even communicate Himself effectively.

I made no such claim, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

First, there were other miracles that superceded the laws of nature such as walking on water. So your whole idea about the God's own limitations upon Himself precluding a literal Genesis falls apart on principle.

Second, neither the resurrection account nor the flood account give God's mechanics for accomplishing what was done. We are simply told it happened. The flood account does not say that natural laws were not suspended or that Noah was not preserved supernaturally. You are making up another limitation upon God and His Word by arguing from silence.

My argument is not based upon silence, but a vast amount of Biblical and extra-Biblical data. Your argument, however, is based exclusively upon silence because you refuse to hear and accept the evidence that your interpretation is ridiculous.

A strict, straightforward literal interpretation of Gen. 6-11 leaves NO ROOM AT ALL for miracles, not simply because they are not mentioned, but because THE VERY POINT THAT THE AUTHOR IS MAKING IS THAT THROUGH THE OBEDIENCE OF ADAM (NOT THE MIRACLES OF GOD) BOTH MAN AND THE ANIMALS WERE SPARED EXTINCTION!!!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

Your logic is flawed and not even worthy of someone as intelligent as you are. You have not proven that the text precludes the supernatural therefore your "certainty" is imagined.

In my post immediately above this one, I proved that the text (Gen. 6-11) precludes the supernatural and, therefore, my "certainty" is NOT imagined but 100% real.

You choose to favor any explanation of Genesis that allows you to maintain your belief in evolution. While I will accept reasonable explanations of science or even "I don't knows" that leave science in conformity with scripture.

My understanding of Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with any theories of evolution! Penguins can’t fly and kangaroos can’t swim. That is not evolution—that is 3rd grade science!

It all goes back to which thing you think is more reliable. God's ability to express Himself accurately and understandably to men... letting us know contextually when things are not to be taken literally? (Oh btw, the NT affirms what we believe about Genesis and not what you believe... so you have to discount a whole lot more than 11 chapters to preserve evolution)

Or do you place more faith in man's intellectual ability to interpret nature? (BTW, the premise, naturalism, is not established by scripture but rather contradicts the example of scripture. Scripture contends that God has "violated" the laws of nature on many occasions)

It all goes back to the fundamental differences in our theology. I believe that God created man with the ability to learn and to reason, and that He desires men to use those gifts to His honor and His glory. You believe ….

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:


A strict, straightforward literal interpretation of Gen. 6-11 leaves NO ROOM AT ALL for miracles, not simply because they are not mentioned, but because THE VERY POINT THAT THE AUTHOR IS MAKING IS THAT THROUGH THE OBEDIENCE OF ADAM (NOT THE MIRACLES OF GOD) BOTH MAN AND THE ANIMALS WERE SPARED EXTINCTION!!!

Christ was obedient unto the death of the Cross. Christ rose from the dead miraculously.

Adam's obedience is no more proof that God did not do anything supernaturally than Christ's obedience is proof that the resurrection was not supernatural.

You are still arguing from silence.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Christ was obedient unto the death of the Cross. Christ rose from the dead miraculously.

Adam's obedience is no more proof that God did not do anything supernaturally than Christ's obedience is proof that the resurrection was not supernatural.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

Adam's obedience

My dear brother,

If you will read Genesis more carefully, I believe that you will find that Adam disobeyed God, but that Noah obeyed God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The obedience of Noah was no more supernatural than the disobedience of Adam, that is, unless you wish to spiritualize Genesis like the Mary Baker Eddy did.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Your argument, however, is based exclusively upon silence because you refuse to hear and accept the evidence that your interpretation is ridiculous.

Not silence. Let us let scripture interpret scripture.

Hebrews 11:7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Note "the world".

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

This describes neither a local nor figurative flood and is directly compared to the "miraculous" destruction of the world by fire in verses 7, 10, and 11.

Genesis 7:21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Natural or supernatural... this is not ambiguous. In fact it could not be more emphatic that everything alive "upon the earth" outside of the Ark died.

Your interpretation is actually an amazing contortion. On the one hand, you deny the literal meaning of the texts in their overall context and normative tone. On the other hand, you attempt to pluck a single phrase out of context and apply it in a weirdly literal way to disprove that the rest of the text is literal.

The JW's do no better job than you have done at using a phrase out of context to force a twisted interpretation upon the whole text.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
The obedience of Noah was no more supernatural than the disobedience of Adam, that is, unless you wish to spiritualize Genesis like the Mary Baker Eddy did.

Of course I didn't say it was. I said that the fact that Noah was obedient in no way precludes the Flood from being a supernatural event. You have created a false dependency between his obedience and natural law that is in no way suggested by the text.

It is simply something you need.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Scott J wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Adam's obedience

My dear brother,

If you will read Genesis more carefully, I believe that you will find that Adam disobeyed God, but that Noah obeyed God.

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry. I meant Noah.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:


A strict, straightforward literal interpretation of Gen. 6-11 leaves NO ROOM AT ALL for miracles, not simply because they are not mentioned, but because THE VERY POINT THAT THE AUTHOR IS MAKING IS THAT THROUGH THE OBEDIENCE OF ADAM (NOT THE MIRACLES OF GOD) BOTH MAN AND THE ANIMALS WERE SPARED EXTINCTION!!!

Christ was obedient unto the death of the Cross. Christ rose from the dead miraculously.

Adam's obedience is no more proof that God did not do anything supernaturally than Christ's obedience is proof that the resurrection was not supernatural.

You are still arguing from silence. </font>[/QUOTE]Should read "Noah's obedience" not "Adam's".

Too late to edit.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Scott J wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Your logic is flawed and not even worthy of someone as intelligent as you are. You have not proven that the text precludes the supernatural therefore your "certainty" is imagined.

In my post immediately above this one, I proved that the text (Gen. 6-11) precludes the supernatural and, therefore, my "certainty" is NOT imagined but 100% real.</font>[/QUOTE] Taking a single phrase out of context and making it the rule for the whole passage is hardly "proof".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You choose to favor any explanation of Genesis that allows you to maintain your belief in evolution. While I will accept reasonable explanations of science or even "I don't knows" that leave science in conformity with scripture.

My understanding of Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with any theories of evolution! Penguins can’t fly and kangaroos can’t swim. That is not evolution—that is 3rd grade science!</font>[/QUOTE] Whatever you say... but please cite the scripture that claims Penguins can fly and Kangaroos can swim.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It all goes back to which thing you think is more reliable. God's ability to express Himself accurately and understandably to men... letting us know contextually when things are not to be taken literally? (Oh btw, the NT affirms what we believe about Genesis and not what you believe... so you have to discount a whole lot more than 11 chapters to preserve evolution)

Or do you place more faith in man's intellectual ability to interpret nature? (BTW, the premise, naturalism, is not established by scripture but rather contradicts the example of scripture. Scripture contends that God has "violated" the laws of nature on many occasions)

It all goes back to the fundamental differences in our theology. I believe that God created man with the ability to learn and to reason, and that He desires men to use those gifts to His honor and His glory. You believe ….

</font>[/QUOTE]Nice attempt at evasion but No.

I believe likewise that God created man with the ability to learn and to reason... but in that He also demands faith. If He said it then all truth will conform to what He said... what He said is not to be conformed to what men perceive as truth.

Additionally, it in no way gives God glory and honor to theorize ways in which creation came about without Him when He expressly claims credit.

A fundamental assumption of evolution is that nothing in nature required a cause outside of nature... that would be God.

It is an absolute ridiculous contradiction to attempt to say that God is glorified by a theory that attempts to explain what He did without referencing Him as the One who did it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

Note "the world".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This describes neither a local nor figurative flood and is directly compared to the "miraculous" destruction of the world by fire in verses 7, 10, and 11.

Matt. 4:8. Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; (NASB, 1995)

Do you believe that Jesus actually looked down and saw Australia?

Col 1:6. which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;

At the time that Paul wrote this, the Australian aborigines were not yet bearing fruit and increasing!

The very same Greek word, kosmos, is used in your quote from 2 Peter and in Matthew and Colossians.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

Your interpretation is actually an amazing contortion. On the one hand, you deny the literal meaning of the texts in their overall context and normative tone. On the other hand, you attempt to pluck a single phrase out of context and apply it in a weirdly literal way to disprove that the rest of the text is literal.

I did not pluck any phrase out of context! Indeed, I have not quoted or even alluded to ANY single phrase in Genesis.

You, one the other hand, have plucked out one, single word, the word “world,” and have twisted and distorted its meaning!