Featured Scholar Explains Why So Many Reject Genesis

This is a post that I agree with at most points. I do think the early church is awfully helpful for understanding the development of theology. However, what Luke is saying here us extraordinarily relevant for this post. I commend him for saying it.:thumbsup:

 

Another reason people move away from one particular reading of Genesis is also because, after doing exegesis, we also exegete the creation around us and see that it appears to be very, very old.

 

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

 

I'm fully willing to note that my understanding of the text guides my understanding of the world. However, I simply don't come to the same conclusions as you concerning the "literal" read of Genesis 1:1-2:3.

 

More insightful remarks from the link provided in the OP!

How important is Genesis to Christianity?

Dr Zuiddam explains that Genesis “is the account of the beginning, not only of this world, but also of God’s relationship with mankind. It teaches us about an intrinsically good God and a beautiful creation that was messed up by Adam’s sin. It tells about a loving God who didn’t give up on His creation, who singled out the families of Noah and later on Abraham, when the world at large was not interested in serving Him.”

Benno also pointed out that how Christians take Genesis is often an indicator of how seriously they take the rest of Scripture. Not coincidentally, the enemies of the Gospel, both overt atheists from outside the Church and theological liberals from within, often aim their guns at Genesis.​

In the following Scripture we have what I believe to be indisputable proof of the validity of Genesis 1:

Exodus 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.

The prophet Elijah had some appropriate words for the Church:

1Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

I believe it is senseless to talk about God as Redeemer if He is not Creator. Genesis records the creative activity of God and the reason that God is also Redeemer. When we start denying Genesis where do we stop?

 

I have not seen any "millennia" of Hebrew scholarship on the matter and I suspect that you haven't either.

The church fathers missed a lot of obvious things.

What conditioning?

 

Precisely.

____________

 

He is the creator so I don't see the point of this post?

 

I So agree with Lukes comment

"I believe it is senseless to talk about God as Redeemer if He is not Creator"

Where/when has ANYONE suggested that God is not creator, When has anyone suggested He is not as much Creator as He is also redeemer. Simply inflammatory OR.

"Genesis records the creative activity of God...." True, once again, when has anyone suggested that He was not.

"When we start denying Genesis, where do we stop" :tonofbricks:

 

The only person present at Creation was God. He chose to give us the account of His activity as recorded in Genesis. Therefore, those who deny the creation account as presented in Genesis are in limbo. If they choose to be there so be it.

Addendum:

In an earlier post I presented the following:

It is obvious from the context of the above Scripture that God is talking about six 24 hour days. And in those six days He made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. Now it seems to me that those professing Christians who cannot accept this Scripture put themselves in limbo!

Addendum 2:

In Hebrews we read the following:

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

This Scripture confirms what we are told in Genesis about Creation:

And God said

The scientific revolution that occurred in the 16th thru the 18th centuries was the work of men who believed the Bible. Now in the enlightened 21st century such people are called morons.

 

A rather simplistic approach I'll agree, but when I face Him one on one I would far rather Him tell me that I took His word literally when He meant it figuratively than the obverse and He berates me for taking His literal word and allegorizing it to suit MY interpretation.

IOW, there is nothing in Genesis to tell/indicate/hint/lead one to accept it other than literal.
Other places it is obvious that a scripture may be other than literal, IE:
1 It is like-----
2 It is as if-----
3 A parable of----
4 etc, etc.
There are no such indicators re: the creation story, so one is "adding to His word" when claiming such; a very dangerous practice.

Oh, I really do not believe God would leave such an important detail (literal or figurative) out of His word since this is the foundation for the rest of His word. Once you decide you can change the specifics of the basics to suit "science", what restraint is there to change the remainder of His word to suit your on agenda?????

But, to each his own!!!:tonofbricks:

 

Appearance of age: RE: the wine Jesus made in an instant at the wedding at Cana (John 2).

This wine implied that some one planted a vinyard, pruned it, that there was a rainy season, growth, ripening, a havest, a pressing and aging of the juice, market delivery, etc,etc...

Yet in this case he created 2-3 year old wine out of water in an instant.


HankD

 

The appearance of old age is a weak argument made by desperate people.

 

Rick,

Add to this the theological smorgasbord that was the patristic age. One man's orthodoxy was another man's heresy.

 

That is one of my objections to the day-age theory. I can argue just as convincingly from the apparent-age theory to support s young earth.

Scripture must be the final arbiter.