The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

[shannonL]

You said it a few posts back Charles "evolution while just a theory" Whatelse needs to be said. You tirelessly defend a theory over the Word of God.


Why do you hold so dearly to a theory that is "espoused by atheists" shouldn't that give you a clue?

Def. of Moderate: species which has very, very weak backbone. Closely related to invertebrate known as liberal.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by shannonL:
Why do you hold so dearly to a theory that is "espoused by atheists" shouldn't that give you a clue?

First off, I don't think Charles Meadows accepts the theory of evolution, so that's a strange charge to make against him.

Feel free to apply it to me instead. I accept many theories accepted by atheists (and others). Aside from evolution, they include the theories of general and special relativity, electromagnetic theory and germ theory, among many others. Since these theories are "espoused by atheists", does that make them wrong?

If your focus is on always being contrary to atheists, you have the wrong perspective. We are to embrace the truth, regardless of whether the world agrees or disagrees. If most atheists claim that 2+2=4, that doesn't mean Christians should look for an alternate type of math they can call their own. Reality is what it is for both Christians and atheists alike.

Some of us wouldn't have to repeat ourselves so much if at least the most obvious logically fallacious arguments were avoided in these discussions. "Evolution must be bad because atheists accept it" is one of those arguments.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Actually Scripture does have something to say about genetics:

Genesis 1:20-25

Indeed it does. In fact, there's quite a bit more later on, in Genesis 30:37-43:

Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban's flock. Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

Note the "and so" and "thus" phrases I highlighted. This passage does not just show what Jacob did without comment on its usefulness. The inspired author says that Jacob's trickery led to certain results: a strong flock of striped, speckled, and spotted animals.

In the next chapter Jacob hides his trickery from his wives and instead attributes the increase to God's blessing (Genesis 31:4-13), but that does not override the causation mentioned in this passage. (If we read the text with modern science in mind, we see that Jacob was more right than he realized. His wealth was indeed due to God's blessing and not at all due to his misguided tricks.)

I doubt many would claim that, based on Genesis 30, Christians should reject modern science with its alternative view of how genetics works. Most do not write off DNA and theories about heredity as just atheist anti-God babble. Very few believe that exterior traits in offspring are determined by what mating animals are looking at. But, we've managed to do that in spite of Genesis 30 being a historical account inspired by God. Since most are willing to allow modern genetics to influence how they read this passage, it is puzzling that some of the same individuals are bothered when others who accept other parts of modern science do the same thing with other passages.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Shannon,

You said it a few posts back Charles "evolution while just a theory" Whatelse needs to be said. You tirelessly defend a theory over the Word of God.

Evolution is a theory which would make a lot of sense based on what we see around us. If you actually read any of my posts you would realize I have never attacked the YEC position itself - only the intellectual dishonesty and pride that accompany it in many cases. I find that many YECers are willing to wilfully misrepresent facts, and slander anyone who is a "LIBERAL" - as long as it serves to bolster their case. I disagree with this.


Why do you hold so dearly to a theory that is "espoused by atheists" shouldn't that give you a clue?

Creation is espoused by alot of kooks as well.

Def. of Moderate: species which has very, very weak backbone. Closely related to invertebrate known as liberal.

You and I will just have to differ here. You seem to take pride in the fact that you just believe the "old ways". Indeed many "fundamentalists" seem to take pride in the fact that they have no formal education, theological or scientific. I choose to use the brain God gave me. And I could not care less if that angers certain individuals. The people who eschew education are typically those who have a fairly inaccurate view of Christianity anyway, caring more about issues of legalism than people. And I think that if you lived in 30 AD you would likely have accused Jesus of being a liberal.

 

[OldRegular]

posted June 15, 2005 08:19 PM
Isn't it strange that no evolutionist has addressed the Scripture included in the OP? But on reflection perhaps not.

posted June 17, 2005 10:35 PM
The point of this thread is to discuss the fact that the New Testament writers interpreted Genesis 1-11 as teaching historical truth. What do the theistic ecolutionists have to say in rebuttal, if anything?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
posted June 15, 2005 08:19 PM
Isn't it strange that no evolutionist has addressed the Scripture included in the OP? But on reflection perhaps not.

posted June 17, 2005 10:35 PM
The point of this thread is to discuss the fact that the New Testament writers interpreted Genesis 1-11 as teaching historical truth. What do the theistic ecolutionists have to say in rebuttal, if anything?

Third time you've asked this. Third time I'll answer it.

Genesis 1-11 is 100% true.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
posted June 15, 2005 08:19 PM
Isn't it strange that no evolutionist has addressed the Scripture included in the OP? But on reflection perhaps not.

posted June 17, 2005 10:35 PM
The point of this thread is to discuss the fact that the New Testament writers interpreted Genesis 1-11 as teaching historical truth. What do the theistic ecolutionists have to say in rebuttal, if anything?

Third time you've asked this. Third time I'll answer it.

Genesis 1-11 is 100% true. </font>[/QUOTE]That is not an answer to the Scripture presented in the OP!

 

[shannonL]

Charles,

I'm a college grad if that concerns you so much.
I'm a fundamentalist as far as believing in the Virgin Birth, literal resurrection, Hell being eternal. Word of God being infallible, inerrant.
I believe Bible should be our guide when it comes to our faith and practice. Determining how we got here is very important to our faith and practice as Christians. So I think the Bible being interpreted literally in Gen 1-11 is important.

I'm not a fundamentalist in the sense that I'm concerned about hair length, pants on women, worship style all those sorts of things. I don't believe in making my preferences other peoples convictions. So quit trying to compare all of those who say they are fundamentalists to the pharisees of the NT. Personally, I can't stand it when people impose non esential rules to the christian life. That being said I will say that I might do more reading and less posting concerning this topic since I admittedly don't know all the arguments fluently enough to debate.

I don't always agree with some of the opinions on the BB but I appreciate the differences even though I may comment bluntly. It causes us all to think and that is a good thing.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
If you think that evolution is a problem because it is predicated on random mutations, I suggest you first work out how you accept God's sovereignty over all the other apparently random forces in creation. Can you accept that God truly is the provider of sunshine, rain and snow, in spite of the randomness (to us) of the weather? Can you accept that God can answer a prayer through a natural rainshower as well as through intervening in a way that defies meteorological explanation? If you can, then I think you'll see that randomness does not limit God.

Evolution is a problem because it is an atheistic philosophy, or religion, if you prefer.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Oldreg,

While not claiming to be an evolutionist myself I will answer the question (again).

The NT is a theological document, written in a time when scientific knowledge was at a minimum compared to what we know today. Ther references to the OT are made with regards to the theological meaning of the OT.

 

[OCC]

Shannon good points. Believing the Bible is literal does not make one a Pharisee.

Oh...and yeah...lots of us are blunt at times.

edited because I forgot to put my two cents in.

All I have to say is why wouldn't a Christian take God at His Word that He created everything in six days? If we don't, we call Him a liar.

 

[Deacon]

All I have to say is why wouldn't a Christian take God at His Word that He created everything in six days? If we don't, we call Him a liar.

To say that those of us that believe in an old earth call God a liar is presumptous!

If you are wrong...you have not only slandered those that believe in an old earth, but God Himself.

Rob

 

[OCC]

Deacon...lighten up. It is not presumptous to say what I said. The Bible says SIX DAYS, does it not??? *sigh*

I haven't slandered anyone anymore than a Calvinist apparently doesn't slander me when they call me a hell-bound heretic for saying Jesus loves anyone.

 

[Deacon]

...these things ought not to be.

Rob

 

[OCC]

...unfortunately they are.

 

[garpier]

My understanding of Gen 1-11 is clouded by several other passages. 1) 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." Not only is this a clear reference to a literal six day creation, but it explains why our week is seven days long- something not explained by thousands of years. 2)Matt. 19:4 "And he ansered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female." Why does Jesus claim that man and women were made at the beginning if there were thousand or millions of years between the beginning and the creation of man? 3)Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and DEATH BY SIN." What is te reason or cause of death for millions of years if sin did not enter the world until Adam? 4)II Pet. 3:5-6 "For this THEY WILLINGLY ARE IGNORANT OF, that by the word of God the heavens were of old and earth standing out of the water and in the water Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished."
Yes the New Nestament is theological, but theology MUST rest on TRUTH. It is not sufficient to claim that the New Testament writers did not understand science. God understood it because he is the AUTHOR of it and the New Testament. New Testament (and Old Testaament ) writers believed in a literal six day creation not because of ignorance in science but because they had faith in the Word of God. Recent creation is not at odds with science. It is at odds with those whose world view and faith have been tainted by the deception of evolutionists.

[ June 24, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: garpier ]

 

[Charles Meadows]

King James,

The question is whether or not Genesis was intended to be literal when Moses wrote it. No one would argue that when the bible speaks of Jesus as a "morning star" or a "tender plant" it means that Jesus is a star or a plant. They are obviously figurative. Old earthers tend to see Genesis 1-11 as being intentionally figurative. There are many similarities with ancient near eastern religious myths, suggesting that Moses was writing a theological epic, attempting to show a people with pagan cultural knowledge that YHWH is the creator and architect of all. Too many Christians assume that Genesis 1-11 was written specifically for 21st century western protestants, who would tend to see it as literal narrative. I think we should always consider the original intent of the passage.

 

[OCC]

Hey Charles, yes we should always consider the original intent of the passage. And yes...nobody in their right mind actually thinks Jesus is a star or a plant.

I was taught that we take Scripture literally unless it makes sense to take it figuratively. But I see no basis for taking creation figuratively. I don't know much earth science but I have heard scientists back up the young earth theory.

I wonder if this is issue is even relevant to our faith. I can't see how God would judge us for being wrong on our understanding of creation. After all, we weren't there. So whether you take it literally or figuratively what may matter most is that God Almighty created everything.

 

[OldRegular]

One thing is particularly sad about this issue. So-called theistic evolutionists believe that those scientists, who argue that scientific observations can be explained by Divine creation better than evolution, are either fruitcakes, ignorant, uneducated, and/or liars.

 

[UTEOTW]

King James

Though I disagree with you on this matter, I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is not relevant to salvation and every one of us here assert God as the Creator of everything whether we believe in six days or accept 13.7 billion years. I wish everyone could keep that in mind. This can digress into questioning of faith, motives and salvation fairly quickly. I think that in reality you will see many different reasons from those of each side who choose to participate in these discussions and who find them either important or interesting or both.

"I was taught that we take Scripture literally unless it makes sense to take it figuratively. But I see no basis for taking creation figuratively. I don't know much earth science but I have heard scientists back up the young earth theory."

Well, there are a few reasons that some do so. Charles gives one reason above. There does seem to be intent to proclaim the One True God to the people receiving the initial message in order to separate them from the sea of gods and goddesses of that region. Another reason is that there are some interesting differences between the accounts in Genesis 1 and that in Genesis 2 that require some twisting to accept as literal but which have no such problems if there was a different intent. A third reason is that God's general revelation to us through His creation shows an ancient creation. These three usually get divided up in discussion but they really belong together for they then make a more complete picture.