GENESIS..CHAPTER 1-11

But in a previous post he wrote, "You may not see it as a salvational issue; I reiterate that I do..."

So basically all you said is it is a salvation issue. If this is the case why don't you work to get all Gleason Archer textbooks out of Baptist schools. After all why would they dare allow our future pastors to study the works of someone unsaved concerning the Bible. Also, let's eliminate all references to Warfield, Machen, Riley, and Torrey.

Yes, I am saying you have twisted and perverted the Gospel. Luckily we will answer to God someday concerning our salvation, not Don.

 

As I recall, I said I considered it a salvational issue, because either the Bible is true, or it isn't.

YOUR salvation is between you and God, and has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

(let's see: the next response will be "yeah, but you're attempting to manipulate people by your use of 'it is a salvational issue.'" Well guess what? You have every right to disagree with me. We were given the opportunity to express our opinions, and I voiced mine, along with what I considered scriptural support for that opinion.

Your response? That I've twisted scripture, and that I'm pathetic. Know what? You're entitled to your opinion, too. I think I'll just choose not to respond in kind....)

 

Agreed Don, No one's salvation here is determined by how Don interprets scripture.

Along with arbiter of salvation via your scriptural interpretation are you now adding a prophetic ability claim?

Well thank you Don, however my right to disagree with Don doesn't come from Don.

Not to respond in kind. That is sickening when taking into account your questioning of other's salvation.

Honest Christians can disagree on Biblical issues and interpretation without calling each others salvation into question. To do so is pathetic.

So in your opinion the following men weren't Christians?

R. A. Torrey, deceased president of Biola, who Henry Morris himself claims held him in his arms while Morris was an infant and blessed him into Christian service. Morris disagrees with his Old earth interpretation but values his memory as a great Christian leader.

W. B. Riley, deceased president of Northern Baptist Seminary.

E. Y. Mullins, deceased president of Southern Baptist Seminary and head of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message committee.

I. Brown, who Henry Morris called "Perhaps the most godly, gracious Christian gentlemen I ever met."

B. B. Warfield, deceased president of the Princeton Theological seminary and the leader of the early fundamentalist movement against the higher critics.

So none of these men were saved according to you?

Your willingness to call disagreement with your interpretation a question of salvation is something you should feel shame for.

 

And your obvious attitude isn't?

As I recall, the question was: Are the events depicted in Genesis 1-11 a true account or not, and are they a salvational issue? I posited that they are, and gave my reasons, and why I considered it a salvational issue.

Instead of debating or even arguing the issue, you attack me, and tell me I'm wrong for twisting scripture--which you have yet to prove--and bringing anyone's salvation into question--while at the same time you question my salvation ("Anyone that tries to make it one has so twisted and perverted the Gospel that they seriously need to look at their own salvation.").

I presented an opinion and backed it up with scripture.

All I see you doing is attacking another Christian.

[ March 28, 2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

Will, I actually did answer that question.

Did God inspire (write) the Bible? (see 2 Timothy 3:16)
If no, then none of this matters, and we're done.
If yes, then continue.

Is God a liar? (see Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18)
If yes, then none of this matters, and we're done.
If no, then continue.

Who wrote the first chapter of Genesis? (see 2 Timothy 3:16)
If men, then see first question.
If God, then see second question.

The scripture I used came straight from Genesis. If you agree that God wrote the Bible, then you know I've used scripture, and you are in error.

Were those men saved? I don't know; that's between God and them. Just as you don't know my salvational state, and I don't know yours.

Were they wrong about Genesis 1? In my humble opinion, yes.

If you will calm down for a little while, and follow my trail of posts, you'll find that I started out saying that yes, in a way, I see it as a salvational issue, because it brings into question the authorship and the authenticity of the Bible.

That's where I stand, and where I'll stay for quite a while. When you and I are before the throne, I may have to turn to you and say, "forgive me, brother, I was wrong."

Or you might have to do the same.

Either way, one day we'll both know, won't we?

 

Will,
Don makes some very good points.
One might ask the question: Where does one draw the line?
Can you be saved without believing: the virgin birth? The bodily resurrection of Christ? The deity of Christ? The verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures? The reality of Heaven and Hell? The historical account of Creation? The historical account of the flood? The historical account of Jonah being swallowed by a whale? The historical account of the church in the Book of Acts?
Just where do you draw the line?
Jesus referred to Genesis one in Matthew 19. 4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female."
This is an obvious reference to a literal historical account of the first chapter of Genesis. Who and what was he questioning? "Have you not read?" Read what? The first two chapters of Genesis, where it explains that the same God who created Adam and Eve, created all the rest of the universe.
He was asking them if they had read the Torah, and gives a literal interpretation of part of it. To disbelieve the historical account of the Creation is question the integrity of Christ. To question Christ's integrity is to call into question his very existence as God. It is a salvational issue.
BTW, Jesus also said, "As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights..." Was this also figurative or an allegory?
DHK

 

DHK,

Actually I haven't seen any good points made on raising interpretation of creation to salvation status. In your post you make a lot of assumptions, which stand on very little ground.

Are you saying for someone to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 non-literally, they are questioning the authority of Christ. This is absurd.

Have you ever read the Fundamentals?

Have you studied the men that wrote them?

Are you claiming they questioned the authority of Christ?

Also, if you interpret Genesis 1 literally, how do you interpret Genesis 2? Literally as well?

Most Genesis 1 literalists do not as it creates a conflict in the scripture. In fact many literalists claim that Genesis 2 is to be read figuratively.

If you do, what did Adam do in total on the 6th day? I'll help you out here:

1. All the animals were created.
2. Adam was created.
3. Adam maintained the garden.
4. God brought all of the animals to Adam and he named the 500,000 to 1,000,000 different species that exist on Earth (was he a speed namer or what?)
5. Adam longed for companionship (what since noon?)
6. God caused Adam to sleep and created Eve.

What is offensive about what both you and Don contend, is that you claim that to differ from your interpretation is to differ from Christ, I don't see the corelation.

I wasn't offended by Don's literal interpretation of Genesis, I can tolerate what I consider to be false belief on his part as its not an essential to his salvation. However by calling it a salvational issue both he and you are saying you can't tolerate disagreement in the church from your positions.

How sad the church has become.

 

That we offend you is quite obvious, Will.

Now, do us all a favor, and show us why we're wrong with our literal interpretation.

You've started with day 6. Please continue.

 

Don,

Please re-read my message. I'm not offended that I believe you misinterpret Genesis 1 and 2. But that you claim that agreement with your interpretation is a salvational issue.

Now as to continuing after day 6, why don't you defend your literal interpretation of it first, then defend the different creation order between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.

The way most commentarists answer this is to read Chapter 1 as the literal (or physical) order and Chapter 2 as the spiritual order. Since you feel interpreting these as literal is a salvational issue, I'd like to see your unique answer to why the creation order is different between Chapter 1 and 2.

Something else specific to answer Chapter 1 verses 24-26 says literally that God created animals first then man, yet Chapter 2 verses 7-19 says literally that God created man first then the animals. How do you reconcile this with your literally only interpretation?

 

(sigh)

You obviously haven't actually been reading the posts, Will. I gave a lot of reasons as to why Gen 1 should be taken as a literal interpretation.

Now you want to avoid that, and add discussion about Gen 2 without telling us why our literal interpretation of Gen 1 is incorrect.

Fine. Here you go: Gen 2 is obviously a summarization of the events in Gen 1. This is signified by the generic use of the word "yom" as opposed to the specific use of that word in Gen 1.

I read you loud and clear, Will. Because I believe that a literal interpretation--not my interpretation, or DHK's, or even yours, but a literal one--is a linchpin of the authenticity of the Bible, you've been offended by me. Because I choose to stand on that position, you've been offended by me. Because I have the opinion that if you doubt the validity of Genesis 1, you necessarily can't in all honesty tell anyone that the rest of the Bible is 100% true, you've been offended by me.

I apologize for offending you, brother--but I can't change my stand on this subject.

----------

As for Alex, I also apologize if I gave you the inclination that I was questioning your salvation. To be more exact, the scenarios you've presented are examples--again, in my opinion--of people leading believers astray with strange teachings.

Whether those people are unsaved, or simply misguided, I can't say. It's not me that judges anyone's salvation, nor is it me that changes anyone's mind or heart.

----------

Dr. Cassidy, if you're reading this, did you receive my e-mail?

 

Hey Alex,

I believe that the Gen. 1 account of the re-creation took place in literal 24-hour days. The idea that the earth and its natural elements were created in Gen. 1 (after verse 1) is non-existent Biblically. Take a look at the Hebrew text.

It is clear that Gen. 1:1 mentions bara (creation out of nothing). However, until one gets to the marine life and man, bara is not mentioned in relation to everything else in the creation chapter. The word "made" in the Genesis account (referring to the firmament-v 7, sun and moon and stars-vv 16-18, ground beasts-v 25) is the word asah, which is a word for appointment. It doesn't have the creative powers as described by bara. Asah is used to take an existing thing and designate authority to it. I Kings 12:31, Jereboam "MADE (ASAH)priests of the lowest of the people". I Sam. 28:1-2, "Achish replied, I will MAKE (ASAH) you my bodyguard for life." Gen. 12:2 God promised Abraham, "I will MAKE (ASAH) of thee a great nation". Deut. 26:19, God promised to "MAKE (ASAH)" them above all nations. I Sam. 12:22, "it hath pleased the Lord to MAKE (ASAH) you His people." etc. Asah describes a creation of something out of existing material. Gen. 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it, He rested from all His work which God created (bara) AND made (asah).

Also, take a look at the wording in the creation chapter. The earth was covered with water and enshrouded in darkness in Gen. 1:2. It was also uninhabitable (without form and void-tohuw va bohuw). Isaiah says in Is. 45:18, "God Himself that formed the earth and made (asah)it; He hath established it, He created it NOT IN VAIN (tohuw), He formed it to be inhabited..." Why was the earth described as uninhabitable in Gen. 1:2? After all, God did not "bara" it that way. Yet, it was "asah" that way.

Why was there an earth in verse 2 BEFORE creation? Why were waters DIVIDED and not created in Gen. 1? Why did God use the word "let" in the creation process when it describes the idea of allowing an existing thing permission to do something? How can something that does not exist be allowed to perform a task? When was darkness created as seen in verse 2?

Gen. 1:2, "The earth WAS (hayah) without form and void..." Hayah suggest the process of "becoming". The same word is used in Gen. 2:7 "...man BECAME (HAYAH) a living soul" Lot's wife "BECAME (HAYAH) a pillar of salt" (Gen. 19:26), Moses' rod "BECAME (HAYAH) a serpent" Ex. 4:3-4, etc. Arthur Custance in his book "Without Form and Void" notes that the earliest Aramaic translation of the OT, the Targum of Onkelos, renders the following translation for Gen. 1:2, "And the earth was laid waste..." Guess the gap theory had its start early on!

Then comes the argument that death and sin did not exist before Adam. The verse used to support this is generally Rom. 5:12. I fully agree that with Adam's sin, death came into the kosmos (Adam's human race). Death was not a part of God's re-created earth until Adam sinned. However, did Lucifer sin? How about some of the angels that were with him? So sin existed on earth BEFORE Adam sinned. Who is to say, that if there were another world that preceded Gen. 1:2, that death did not occur to them because of their sin? They were not a part of Adam's kosmos, therefore, Rom. 6:23 and 5:12 would not be talking about them.

Remember, when Lucifer fell, there was some kind of social structure involved. Ezek. 28:16 tells us that Lucifer became filled with violence by his "widespread trade" and two verses later mentions Lucifer's "iniquity of thy traffick". Traffic is a word that means "trade" or "merchandising" like we use the term today "drug traffic". Lucifer was certainly travelling around, sinning. Ezek. 28:18 tells us that Lucifer had "sanctuaries" which he defiled by his iniquities. It appears there was a lot of sinning Lucifer did before Lucifer's rebellion in which God cast him out of his kingdom.

The gap theory does not endorse any type of evolutionary processes. It also agrees with the Gen. 1 account where the re-creation of the earth took place in 6 literal 24-hour days. Remember, the Bible does not support true science. True science supports the Bible.

 

Ex.20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
---What did Moses teach the Israelites? Or the scribes? Or people like Ezra who expounded the law to the people? How were the Israelites down throughout their generations to understand not only Genesis 1 and 2, but statements such as Ex.20:11? Would they believe that the first three days were figurative and the last four literal? When Moses came to them and said "in six days the Lord made..." what do you suppose they thought the six meant? Six periods of geological ages? Or six literal 24 hour days? I take the latter view, as I believe the Jews did as well.
DHK

 

What if the world (not man or beast) were created millions (or even billions) of years ago? Why wouldn't there be a fossil record? When Moses and the prophets said that "in six days the Lord made (asah)," the people KNEW it was not an original creation, but rather a re-creation. How did they know? Because Hebrew was their native tongue.

Again, there were no 6 geological ages in Gen. 1. They were literal 24-hour days. However, the earth had ALREADY been created thousands or millions of years before the Genesis 1 account of the RE-CREATION. The account of a pre-Adamic world-wide flood can be found in Jer. 4, Ps. 104 and II Peter 3. So obviously, more than one Hebrew writer understood the idea of a pre-Adamic flood, thus understanding the idea that Genesis 1:2 begins an account of a RE-creation.

 

Not you, Alex. You made it clear in your first post that it was your pastor that led you to this belief; that's who I had in mind. My apologies for confusing that point.

 

There are several distinction between the two floods. The following list is from Another Time, Another Place, Another Man by Finis Dake. I do not agree with everything on this list nor all of his theological ideology, but he puts together enough corroborated evidence to warrant an investigation.

There are several differences between the pre-Adamic flood (Lucifer's flood) and Noah's flood.

1. Lucifer's-Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Not made waste (Gen; 8:11-12. 22)

2. Lucifer's-Earth made empty (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Not made empty (Gen. 6:17-22, 8:16)

3. Lucifer's-Earth made totally dark (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Not made totally dark (Gen. 8:6-12)

4. Lucifer's-No light from heaven (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Light from heaven (Gen. 8:6-22)

5. Lucifer's-No days (Gen. 1:2-5)/Noah's-Days (Gen. 8:1-22)

6. Lucifer's-All vegetation destroyed (Jer. 4:23-26)/Noah's-Vegetation remained (Gen. 8:11-12, 22)

7. Lucifer's-No continual abating of waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12)/Noah's-Continual abating of waters off earth (Gen. 8:1-14)

8. Lucifer's-Water removed from earth in one day (Gen. 1:10)/Noah's-Months abating off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14)

9. Lucifer's-Supernatural work of taking waters off earth (Gen. 1:6-12)/Noah's-Natural work of removing waters (Gen. 8:1-14)

10. Lucifer's-God rebuked the waters (Gen. 1:6-12, Ps. 104:7)/Noah's-No rebuke of waters (Gen. 8:1-14)

11. Lucifer's-Waters hasted away (Ps. 104:7)/Noah's-Waters gradually rededed (Gen. 8:1-14)

12. Lucifer's-God set bounds for waters (Ps. 104:7)/Noah's-Bounds already set (Gen. 1:6-12; 8:2)

13. Lucifer's-All fish destroyed because sun witheld from earth (Gen. 1:2, 20-23; Jer. 4:23-26)/Noah's-No fish destroyed, only land animals (Gen. 6:18-8:22)

14. Lucifer's-No fowls left (Gen. 1:20, Jer. 4:25)/Noah's-Fowls preserved (Gen. 6:20; 8:17)

15. Lucifer's-No animals left (Gen. 1:24-25; 2:19)/Noah's-Animals preserved (Gen. 6:20; 8:17)

16. Lucifer's-No man left (Gen. 1:26-28; Jer. 4:25)/Noah's-8 men & women saved (Gen. 6:18)

17. Lucifer's-No social system left (II Pet. 3:6, Jer. 4:23-26)/Noah's-Social system preserved (Gen. 6:18, 8:22, II Pet. 2:5)

18. Lucifer's-No ark made to preserve life (Jer. 4:23-26, II Pet. 3:6-7)/Noah's-Ark was made to save life (Gen. 6:14-22; I Pet. 3:20)

19. Lucifer's-Cause: fall of Lucifer (Is. 14:12-14, Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17)/Noah's-Cause: wickedness of man (Gen. 6:1-13)

20. Lucifer's-Result: necessary to make new fish, fowl, animals, man and vegetation (Gen. 1:3-2:25)/Noah's-Result-No new creations for all things were preserved (Gen. 6:18-8:22)

As far as the gap theory being invented for the purpose of the accomodation of evolution is ludicrous. One of the earliest Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, the Targum of Onkelos, renders the following translation for Gen. 1:2, "And the earth was laid waste..." Guess the gap theory had its start long before evolution was even a twinkle in the eye of Darwin's great-great-grandpappy! Besides, how can YOU biblically account for the presence of water covering the earth in Genesis 1:2? How can YOU biblically account for the darkness? Why are waters "divided" but not even mentioned as being "created" (bara) or even "made" (asah) in the creation chapter after verse 1? Could it be that it already existed by the time Gen. 1:2 came about?

It's fine that one does not hold my view of a gap theory. I really don't care. However, to accuse the gap theory as a way of supporting evolutionary thinking is absurd. Whether or not you agree with it does not mean that its origins are not found in Scripture.

 

Smellin Coffee why don't you drop by the Baptist welcome forum and introduce yourself to our moderators. I know they would like to get to know you. You stated on your profile you were nondenominational, to post on the Baptist Only Forum you must be Baptist and claim a church affiliation. Those are the rules of the board and you can post anywhere else you like but those restricted areas and need to read our rules to see where you can post... Brother Glen