The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

[Paul33]

I can accept an old earth arguement on the basis of "days" meaning a longer period of time, etc. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand the source of the interpretation.

However, I have no such charity for theistic evolutionists. Evolution is a discredited atheistic philosophy and there is no reason to attempt a reconciliation to a theory that is being discarded by scientists in droves.

OldReg is right about his statement regarding the NT and its support for a historical/scientific/factual understanding of Genesis 1-11.

Jesus certainly believed that Adam and Eve were created by God as male and female. Paul basis a whole arguement around the historicity of Adam and Eve.

To deny the "spiritual" facts of Genesis 1-11 is to undercut the NT. There is no way around this fact. Spritual truths are also historical and scientific truths.

Gray has given us an answer to this OE/YE question. For people who claim to believe God's Word, I would think his interpretation would gather more support.

Instead, many continue to pursue "evolutionary" concepts to support "what we know about the world" without digging in to what we know about the Hebrew text.

Perhaps, in the words of my former seminary professor, we should say, "A pox on both your houses."

Seriously, Genesis, IMO, teaches an undefined age for the universe and earth's core, and a recent age for the earth's biosphere. Genesis 1:3ff is a description of the earth's biosphere being formed and filled to make it habitable for life. It's really that simple and elegant.

 

[yeshua4me2]

your refute refuted..... http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/microwave.asp

 

[yeshua4me2]

anyway I am speaking for biblical authority not on the authority of falliable men. these men just represent a different interpretation of the data. same data just different presuppositions....we presume God created, evolutionists presume no God and time and processes created. neither is provable, Creationists are simply up front with their Bias evolutionists are not.

you've changed my mind on the squarra bird but what about the others, the same website has them, thank's for the website.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

There may be an atheistic philosophy of evolution but what is being debated around here is the science of evolution, and science says nothing about whether or not there is a God.

Of course, we could ALL start using loaded terms - how about the "pharasaic" theology of special creationism?

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
your refute refuted..... http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/microwave.asp

These conclusions are at odds with the conclusions of the professional astronomers who made the actual observations. Here are enough of their papers on the matter to last a week. Papers which have been submitted to the peer review process to see if other professional scientists can find fault with their results. I would suggest that if the guys at AIG have an alternate interpretation that they should submit their results to the same scrutiny. The peer review process is the appropriate place for disagreements in science to be debated. If they choose not to participate, they must have a very low opinion of their own work.

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/map_bibliography.cfm

Does anyone care to take each of these papers and show wherethe authors are incorrect?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
There may be an atheistic philosophy of evolution but what is being debated around here is the science of evolution, and science says nothing about whether or not there is a God.

Of course, we could ALL start using loaded terms - how about the "pharasaic" theology of special creationism?

Actually on this particular thread we are supposed to be discussing the view of the writers of the New Testament regarding Genesis 1-11 as indicated in the OP, repeated for your edification:

The atheist tells us that there is no God, that everything that exists is the result of time and chance. Scripture tells us in Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. We can rightly conclude then that an atheist is a fool. But what of those who claim to be Christians yet ardently defend the evolution of man, denying the very God who gives eternal life?

Generally they begin by saying that the Bible does not tell us how God created, but that is false. Scripture tells us that God spoke and it was so. Hebrews 11:3 tells us 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. It is not likely that God would create the universe by His word and then leave the epitome of His creation, made in His own image, to chance.

Next they will tell us that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be interpreted literally but that they are a mythological story simply showing us something about God, what, I don’t know.

What does the Scripture of the New Testament tell us about Divine Creation?

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.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

If we look at the words of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the New Testament writers we see that they understood Genesis 1-11 as a historical account of the pre flood period. Please note that though I refer to the particular human author of a given book I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible, that God Himself is the author.

Jesus Christ quotes Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5. Are we to believe that Jesus Christ, who we say died that we might be saved, used a mythological story to describe the sanctity of marriage? It is obvious that Jesus Christ believed in a real Adam and real Eve as He says:

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ obviously thought Noah was a real man or He misled us all for He said in Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man.

Luke the physician obviously believed that Adam was a real man since he writes in Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The Apostle Paul obviously thought Adam was a real man and that Eve was a real woman, that the story of the creation and fall of man were literal since he writes:

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

The author of Hebrews certainly believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real and world wide since he writes in Hebrews 11:7 By 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.

Peter also believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real since he states in 2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

The Apostle Peter certainly did not believe that Genesis 1-11 was mythological when he said in 1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

It is obvious that the writers of the New Testament believed the Scripture of Genesis 1-11, but then they are the words of God Himself.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
There may be an atheistic philosophy of evolution but what is being debated around here is the science of evolution, and science says nothing about whether or not there is a God.

Of course, we could ALL start using loaded terms - how about the "pharasaic" theology of special creationism?

Bunk!

Today's "modern" science is an abuse of the term science. Theology was the queen of the sciences until very recently.

Today's science can't lead us to God because it a priori excludes the supernatural!

That isn't science, that's philosophy!

 

[yeshua4me2]

i think the writers of the NT believed and taught in literal Gen 1-11.
Jesus said from the beginning He created them male and female (Matt19:4, Mark10:6).
The writer of Hebrews refers to those chapters as historic (Heb 11:1-7), here clearly referring to Cain and Able as real persons, as well as Enoch and Noah.
Peter in the context of Judgement refers to the Creation and Flood as historical facts (2Pet 3:4-6).
Paul in Romans (5:12-14)speeks of Adam as a historic figure and the events of the Garden as facts.
The point of the Geneology in Luke is to establish Jesus' direct link to Adam. I think to show that the promise made to Eve was fulfilled (Gen3:15). Why do this if you knew these (Gen 1-11) to be allagoric or figuretive. And how can you have millions of years of death and disease before sin(fossil record shows millions of years of STD's, cancer and many other diseases)?

Anyway I think it is selfevident that the writers of the NT (as well as the early church fathers) knew Genesis 1 thru 11 to be historic.


thankyou and God Bless

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I guess it comes down to ,do we believe Jesus,Luke,Paul, and Peter, or do we believe the evolutionist.
I have seen many arguements on the board over the last 1 1/2 years regarding evolution vs creation.I don't know yet exactly what it is the evolutionist or theistic evolutionist actually believe about man's beginninigs.I am curious though.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Just as an added note ,I don't get the sense they are Dawinist in the classic sense.I get the sense they are old earther's.Beyond that I don't really have a sense of what they actually believe about man's beginnings.

 

[OldRegular]

Plain Old Bill

I believe the so-called theistic evolutionists want to be politically correct or in blunter terms, play in both backyards: evolution and creation.

They choose to ignore that evolution is an atheistic philosophy while embracing so-called biologic evolution. Their theology is more deistic than theistic. How they work in the Fall and the necessity for a Redeemer is a mystery.

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell makes the following comment:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Plain Old Bill


“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen.

This is what's known as the slippery slope fallacy. Evolution does not negate the possibility of Adam being a literal, historical figure. Nor does it negate a fall through willful disobedience to God.

 

[yeshua4me2]

evolution says that ALL biological life arose from simpler life, including humans. how can you have the consequences of sin (Rom 5:12) before sin itself?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
evolution says that ALL biological life arose from simpler life, including humans. how can you have the consequences of sin (Rom 5:12) before sin itself?

What, spiritual death?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
Plain Old Bill


“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen.

This is what's known as the slippery slope fallacy. Evolution does not negate the possibility of Adam being a literal, historical figure. Nor does it negate a fall through willful disobedience to God. </font>[/QUOTE]It is really not a fallacy and I don't recall any evolutionist on this Forum admitting that Adam was a historical person.

 

[Paul33]

OldReg,

I'm with you. I have yet to see, hear, or know of a theistic evolutionist who accepts that Adam was an historical person. Evolution is antithetical to Scriptural revelation.

Either God created the world and everything in it, or it evolved by random, purposeless chance without the help or aid of God or anything like God. And since the latter is a scientific impossibility, "scientists" have postulated that life began on earth from alien life forms from distant galaxies.

So much for scientific objective truth!

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
I have yet to see, hear, or know of a theistic evolutionist who accepts that Adam was an historical person.

Here's a fairly well-known example: [Glenn R. Morton].

I'm pretty sure some of the TEs here also insist on a historical Adam. Personally, I think Adam could either be a historical person or representative of a group of people (much the way the Tree of Life may represent God's sustaining power instead of having inherent magical properties). Last time this was brought up, I think most TEs here were more conservative on this issue than I am.

Either God created the world and everything in it, or it evolved by random, purposeless chance without the help or aid of God or anything like God.

Why don't you consider it an option that God may be able to work in ways that seem random to us? Can't God control the weather? Can't he ensure that people are born where he wants them to be born, with the traits he wants them to have? Couldn't he even guide the process of casting lots in the New Testament? Why do you think randomness is such a problem for God?

(I've asked these questions so many times I've lost count, and have yet to get an answer.)

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
They choose to ignore that evolution is an atheistic philosophy while embracing so-called biologic evolution. Their theology is more deistic than theistic.

One reason I am drawn to theistic evolution is because is vanquishes the deistic Watchmaker who wound up the universe in six days and then stepped away to watch it spin down, or the Designer who turned the fully-wound universe over to Mother Nature to take care of from then on, except for a few interventions to tinker with it. Instead, it affirms that God created Adam and God created you and me. God makes the sparrows, the grass of the field, the stars in the sky.

Natural processes are sustained by God and used by him to accomplish his purposes. They do not operate on their own; they are not independent of God. God holds the matter of the universe together, and gravity and the other forces describe some of how God does that. God also does other things that cannot be explained by natural processes, such as miracles and other intersections between this universe and what is beyond it.

To describe this view of creation as deistic is to fail to understand it.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
They choose to ignore that evolution is an atheistic philosophy while embracing so-called biologic evolution. Their theology is more deistic than theistic.

One reason I am drawn to theistic evolution is because is vanquishes the deistic Watchmaker who wound up the universe in six days and then stepped away to watch it spin down, or the Designer who turned the fully-wound universe over to Mother Nature to take care of from then on, except for a few interventions to tinker with it. Instead, it affirms that God created Adam and God created you and me. God makes the sparrows, the grass of the field, the stars in the sky.

Natural processes are sustained by God and used by him to accomplish his purposes. They do not operate on their own; they are not independent of God. God holds the matter of the universe together, and gravity and the other forces describe some of how God does that. God also does other things that cannot be explained by natural processes, such as miracles and other intersections between this universe and what is beyond it.

To describe this view of creation as deistic is to fail to understand it. </font>[/QUOTE]You are incorrect. Theistic-evolutions do not say that God created any life. They claim that life evolved from non-life, and that is a fact jack!

 

[Travelsong]

If God created all there is from nothing, then all there is was created by God. Pretty complicated concept huh?