Creation questions

Could you point us all to the proof please?

If Genesis 1-11 is not a literal account of historic events, on what grounds do you accept Genesis 12 (assuming you do)?

Liz </font>[/QUOTE]I second the motion Liz!

 

I'll soften Craig's statements some...

That the world is old obviously has not been proven 100% - but it does seem likely based at least on scientific observation.

That Genesis 1-11 is not literal has not been proven 100% - but study of other ancient near eastern writings suggests that possibly the creation account was not INTENDED to be literal.

I would not go as far as to say that either of these should simply be accepted by all Christians.

But I will suggest that we abandon the idea that believing scientific observation or observations based on near eastern archeology mean that one does not TRUST the Bible.

That the earth is young and Genesis 1-11 literal are Christian tradition, human tradition. I am not so arrogant as to assume that I have everything figured out and that my viewpoint is 100% right - and yet I HAVE done a significant amount of study in academic science and academic theology.

 

Liz Ward wrote,

The proof is voluminous and much too complicated for the lay person to understand because it involves advanced studies in genetics, ecology, zoology, botany, geology, paleontology, and other related disciplines. However, here is a highly simplified summary of some of the basic proofs that lay persons are capable of understanding.

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any rational man or woman with basic human intelligence can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the NATURAL means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

Genesis 12 is not in direct conflict with known facts.

 

I wrote that “it has been incontrovertibly proven that Gen. 6-8 is NOT a literal account of historic events. And since we know for a fact that Gen. 6-8 is NOT a literal account of historic events, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any other part of Genesis 1-11 is a literal account of historic events.” That Gen. 6-8 is NOT a literal account of historic events has been proven to the same degree that the earth is not flat—there is absolutely no reasonable doubt about it—but of course some people still believe that the earth is flat (I have posted elsewhere documentation concerning a flat earth society that is genuinely sincere in their beliefs). Has it been proven 100% that the earth is not flat? I will leave that up to Charles Meadows to decide for himself.

 

That Gen. 6-8 is NOT a literal account of historic events has been proven to the same degree that the earth is not flat—there is absolutely no reasonable doubt about.

I don't think I'd take it that far.

Astronauts have SEEN that the earth is not flat.

The Genesis thing is not quite so certain.

But your analogy regarding those who believe that the earth is flat is interesting. And it probably WOULD apply to some here!

 

Some of you may enjoy reading an article by Curt Sewell entitled “The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship.” Here is a link to that article,

http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

 

Craigbythesea,

Do you believe that God can perform supernatural miracles? I noticed that your profile says that "Jesus is the Son of God, God incarnate." Certainly, God coming in the flesh is a miracle, right?

All those "proofs" you listed above just caused me to praise God even more for the wonder that He is - that He would perform such a grand miracle that is Noah's Ark as recorded in God's Word.

I have a feeling that God's reply to your list would go along the lines of His interrogation of Job - "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

 

has anyone here read whitcomb's book "the Genesis Flood"?.

 

Hi Andy ,

Welcome to the BB.

Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THESE MIRACLES BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE NARRATIVE IS THAT THROUGH THE NATURAL MEANS OF AN ARK BUILT BY NOAH AND HIS FAMILY, MANKIND AND ALL THE KINDS OF ANIMALS WERE SAVED FROM THE WATER.

Therefore, by you own admission, Gen. 6-8 CANNOT possibly be a literal account of an historic event! You CANNOT have your cake and it too!

 

Who says that is the whole point of the account? Besides, God worked miracles through man all the time in Scripture. Case in point, the miracle of God coming in the flesh through Jesus was done through the cooperation of Mary. I'm quite certain that Mary gave birth naturally to the baby Jesus. Just because he was born naturally by coming forth from Mary's womb, does not mean that the Incarnation is completely natural; it involved the supernatural working of God Himself. And so with Noah's Ark, God used Noah's obedience to perform the miracle of the flood and the salvation of the human race (and the animals, to boot).

 

Do you believe that God can perform supernatural miracles?

That's a good point.

Most fundamentalists would say that those who are not literal creationists do not trust that God could have made everything in 6 literal days.

That is very much not the case.

I think that Genesis 1-11 was NOT intended to be literal.

It's not a question of nothaving enough faith that God COULD do it - it's a question of whether or not (after studying Genesis in its ancient context) Moses INTENDED it to be literal.

 

All your reasons seemed to assume a world-wide flood.

 

Since when does "near eastern writings" have any bearing on the revelation of God. Those are all pagan accounts.

The idea that they should have any bearing on Scripture is as silly as the Supreme Court using the opinion of EU courts, rather than the Constitution, in reaching some recent decisions.

 

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

 

The idea that they (near eastern writings) should have any bearing on Scripture is as silly as the Supreme Court using the opinion of EU courts, rather than the Constitution, in reaching some recent decisions.

This is exactly the viewpoint with which I disagree.

You seem to think that the Bible was written only for Americans living after 1900 or so.

In case you forget - the Hebrews WERE ancient near easterners. The Bible is contemporary with other ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN WRITINGS. Moses and the Hebrew people were likely familiar with ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN WRITINGS. Why wouldn't it be useful to use contemporary writings to try to understand the frame of mind of the ancient Hebrews?

It seems to me that you don't really WANT to know what Genesis 1-11 means IF that would mean upsetting your predetermined beliefs.

 

Charles and I have done the near eastern discussion before, haven't we Charles? I think it went on for pages and pages of the very long thread.

I pointed out how different Gen. is from the pagan accounts -- and it is. What bothers me here on the BB is that some people seem to assume that those who believe a literal Gen. 1-11 are somehow less educated or are not familiar with near eastern creation accounts.

And education aside, it seems that God would not give Moses an account of creation as literal, knowing that people would take it literally, if it were not so. Saying that people at that time did not have the knowledge we have today doesn't get God off the hook for being deceptive. It is deceptive to give a literal account and then later say it was not literal because now we know so much. God would not do that. He is not deceptive.

I can only say that having just completed my OT2 seminary course, I believe in the literal account of Genesis more than ever before! My prof, who teaches Hebrew (and Greek) and OT, does, too.

 

I know as a scientist that the story of Noah's Ark is NOT a literal account of an historic event. Absolutely nothing even remotely like that took place. The story as it is told in Gen. 6-8 makes no mention or suggestion of any of the multitudes of huge miracles that would have been necessary for such a thing to become a reality, and for men to interject those miracles into the Biblical narrative is an act of violence to the word of God. I don’t know why the story is in the Bible because the Bible does not tell us why the story is included. I do know, however, that the story being in the Bible does NOT make God to be deceptive; it only makes those who teach the story to be a literal account deceptive. God is absolutely incapable of all sin—including deception. Men, on the other hand, ….

In every case in the Bible in which we find miraculous events, the Bible makes it expressly clear that the events were miraculous and that they were performed by God. We find absolutely no hint of such a thing in Gen. 6-8. The story of Noah’s Ark, when taken at face value and interpreted literally, makes a mockery of God, His word, and the Christian faith. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that Christians look beyond a literal interpretation and seek for a plausible interpretation.

Does the Bible say that Genesis 1-11 is an historically accurate narrative intended to be interpreted literally? No, it does not. Those who teach that Genesis 1-11 is an historically accurate narrative intended to be interpreted literally are teaching a doctrine of men without knowledge, and a doctrine that is contrary to fact. And those who even suggest that those who refuse to believe this false, man-made, antiquated doctrine make God out to be a liar are guilty of sinning against God.

God has blessed us with the ability to observe, think, question, and learn—and those who refuse to observe, think, question, and learn are being very poor stewards of these blessings from God.

 

Had your professor also earned a Ph.D. in Biology at a major university, he would have known for an absolute fact that Genesis 6-8 is NOT a literal account of an historic event.

Genesis 6-8 is NOT a theological treatise; it describes a natural happening which the natural sciences prove did not happen. Therefore, a Th.D. is no more useful in evaluating this passage than an A.A. degree in basket weaving. And since the story concerns all of the genetically discrete populations of animals that have lived on the earth for the past several thousand years, a Ph.D. in Biology is VERY useful in evaluating this passage, and no biologist who has earned a Ph.D. from a major university in recent years has ever defended a literal interpretation of Gen. 6-8.

As for the Answers in Genesis “ministry” and the Institute for Creation Research, both of these organizations have been proven by posts on this message board to be guilty of willfully distorting facts pertinent to this issue. Those who have the facts on their side do not need to distort them. I have personally known many scientists, and none of them were perfect, but all of them were committed to learning the truth. I have personally seen the precise opposite to be true of creationists.

 

Marcia,

I pointed out how different Gen. is from the pagan accounts -- and it is. What bothers me here on the BB is that some people seem to assume that those who believe a literal Gen. 1-11 are somehow less educated or are not familiar with near eastern creation accounts.

It is certainly different. But it is similar enough that one would think that the author of one might have been familiar with the other loosely.

I have no problem with someone believing in a literal Genesis 1-11. But I resent those (who generally ARE uneducated) who assert that only the literal interpretation is even possible - because they typically assert this out of fear of change or fear of "giving in" to "liberalism".

I want to know the truth whether or not it corrects traditional western interpretation.

 

I know as a scientist that the story of Noah's Ark is NOT a literal account of an historic event. Absolutely nothing even remotely like that took place. The story as it is told in Gen. 6-8 makes no mention or suggestion of any of the multitudes of huge miracles that would have been necessary for such a thing to become a reality, and for men to interject those miracles into the Biblical narrative is an act of violence to the word of God. I don’t know why the story is in the Bible because the Bible does not tell us why the story is included. I do know, however, that the story being in the Bible does NOT make God to be deceptive; it only makes those who teach the story to be a literal account deceptive. God is absolutely incapable of all sin—including deception. Men, on the other hand, ….

In every case in the Bible in which we find miraculous events, the Bible makes it expressly clear that the events were miraculous and that they were performed by God. We find absolutely no hint of such a thing in Gen. 6-8. The story of Noah’s Ark, when taken at face value and interpreted literally, makes a mockery of God, His word, and the Christian faith. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that Christians look beyond a literal interpretation and seek for a plausible interpretation.

Does the Bible say that Genesis 1-11 is an historically accurate narrative intended to be interpreted literally? No, it does not. Those who teach that Genesis 1-11 is an historically accurate narrative intended to be interpreted literally are teaching a doctrine of men without knowledge, and a doctrine that is contrary to fact. And those who even suggest that those who refuse to believe this false, man-made, antiquated doctrine make God out to be a liar are guilty of sinning against God.

God has blessed us with the ability to observe, think, question, and learn—and those who refuse to observe, think, question, and learn are being very poor stewards of these blessings from God.

</font>[/QUOTE]As a scientist you "know" that the flood was not a literal event and "absolutely" could not happen? Did you receive some revelation telling you this, or because you are a scientist, it could not be possible based on your finite, earthly wisdom? I'm sure God threw that story in the front of the Bible to give us something to read to our kids at bedtime.

God is not the author of confusion, but your "knowledge" of the events in Genesis is, and is quite deceiving.