The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

[Charles Meadows]

Paul,

This idea that the Bible and Christianity are beyond proof and must only be taken by faith is just Immanuel Kant regurgitated.

And what did Jesus say to Thomas? Blessed are they who have not seen but have believed.

I don't suggest that Christianity in all facets is, by its nature, beyond proof. Rather I suggest that if we make provability a criterion for accepting a biblical truth we are approaching things in a fundamentally wrong-headed manner.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

We know the gospels are designed as documents of witness. The whole point of the 4 gospels is to testify to the truth of Jesus life, ministry, death, and resurrection.

The creation narrative bears alot of resemblance to ancient near eastern myth stories. That is just fact - pretending it is not so does not help the Christian cause. The main point of Genesis 1 and 2 is that God made the earth. The main point is NOT how long it took to make it or in what order.

What is this, Charles, round 17?

You say the gospels were written as documents of witness to testify to the life and truth of Christ. Agreed.

That helps me make my 2 points:
1. Why isn't acceptable as evidence to believe that Genesis was given to Moses (and to us) as a document to testify to God's creation and how He did it?
2. The parallels between John 1 and Gen. 1 indicating new creation (one the world and one the incarnation - the latter "new" in the sense of God becoming man) are only further evidence that Gen. 1 (and more) should be taken literally. Why would we be expected to take Jn. 1 literally and not Gen. 1 literally, considering the obvious paralells? There is no indication in the text not to do so.

 

[Paul33]

Amen, Marcia.

I was thinking the same thing.

Also, Jesus himself, as someone has already pointed out, referred to Genesis 1-11 several times to prove points that he was making about marriage, etc.

Finally, Jesus also told Thomas, look at my hands and feet, thrust your hands into my side. Christianity is both by faith and fact. It's not either/or, but both/and. Our faith is a propositional faith because God is rational, logical, and has chosen to reveal himself to us.

Creation itself reveals enough of God to mankind to condemn those who reject the God of creation (Romans 1).

It's not JUST by faith, it is also by TRUTH and CONFESSION of that TRUTH.

The criteria for belief is that God said it and that settles it.

 

[garpier]

Originally posted by Paul33

Garpier, you speak fluent Hebrew, don't you.

Not yet but I expect to when I get to heaven.

 

[garpier]

Mercury

Thank you for your lenghty reply. I can now understand whee you are coming from. I don't agree with it, but it gives me insight into your thinking on the subject. It will be useful for me if the Lord allows me to complete a study I am working on either for a dissertation or book.

 

[Mercury]

garpier,

Thank you for the gracious response.

We'll agree in eternity.

 

[garpier]

I look forward to meeting you there if our paths don't cross down here

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

The parallels between John 1 and Gen. 1 indicating new creation (one the world and one the incarnation - the latter "new" in the sense of God becoming man) are only further evidence that Gen. 1 (and more) should be taken literally. Why would we be expected to take Jn. 1 literally and not Gen. 1 literally, considering the obvious paralells? There is no indication in the text not to do so.

Interesting point.

But the point of John has nothing to do with the scientific side of creation - rather the theological ones. But the similarity of incarnation is there.

 

[OldRegular]

Evolution is an atheistic philosophy.

 

[Paul33]

Amen. Now how do you make an atheistic philosophy compatible with theism?

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Marcia,

The parallels between John 1 and Gen. 1 indicating new creation (one the world and one the incarnation - the latter "new" in the sense of God becoming man) are only further evidence that Gen. 1 (and more) should be taken literally. Why would we be expected to take Jn. 1 literally and not Gen. 1 literally, considering the obvious paralells? There is no indication in the text not to do so.

Interesting point.

But the point of John has nothing to do with the scientific side of creation - rather the theological ones. But the similarity of incarnation is there.

More of the either/or mentality.

John, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, revealed not only spiritual truth but scientific truth.

God created all things by the Word. This is a direct contradiction to evolution and is of itself a scientific statement about the nature of the universe. The scientific truth of this statment adds emphasis to the following statements that the world, though made by him, refused to recognize him.

Scientific truth used to draw out spiritual truth. Both/and.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
John, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, revealed not only spiritual truth but scientific truth.

God created all things by the Word. This is a direct contradiction to evolution and is of itself a scientific statement about the nature of the universe.

When John says that God created all things by the Word, this rules out the use of anything natural and is a scientific statement? If so, then not only does this statement contradict evolution, but it also contradicts Genesis 2 where Scripture says that God formed man and animals from the ground.

That's the trouble with reading science into statements that aren't intended to convey science. It lowers words to mean something they were not intended to mean, and as a result, it makes the words untrue.

Now how do you make an atheistic philosophy compatible with theism?

How do you accept the atheistic philosophies (by OldRegular's use of the term) of gravity and electromagnetism? Probably the same way others accept scientific theories that you are not convinced of -- you realize that theories that explain parts of the natural world without appealing to supernatural explanations are not inherently atheistic.

 

[Paul33]

How can you say that? God created by the Word, meaning God the Son. The Word created everything that is seen and unseen. There is no contradiction here with Genesis 1.

Science, up until the early 1800s was never conceived to be only natural. That is a recent a priori philosophical assumption forced on "science."

Newton was a believer in God and Christianity. OldRegular did not call gravity an atheistic philosophy. You just did, but he hasn't. Believing in the laws of nature that God created and enforces is anything but atheistic. Nice try. Won't work.

Your last sentence is true, but that's not the orientation most scientists are working out of. For them science is and can only be naturalistic because that is all that there is!

Why do you argue against what you know to be true. Science, as defined by today's naturalistic scientists is atheistic. They admit to no supernatural explanations because they don't believe in the supernatural. That's atheism.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
How do you accept the atheistic philosophies (by OldRegular's use of the term) of gravity and electromagnetism? Probably the same way others accept scientific theories that you are not convinced of -- you realize that theories that explain parts of the natural world without appealing to supernatural explanations are not inherently atheistic.

Please do not misrepresent what I say. That is unethical and unChristian.

Questions for you if you can answer them.

1. When did gravity come into existence?

2. When did electromagnetism come into existence?

By the way, if you can answer the above questions, you will see that they are not atheistic philosophies.

 

[Charles Meadows]

John, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, revealed not only spiritual truth but scientific truth.

John was trying to reveal scientific truth?

You're putting words in John's mouth to further your agenda.

 

[Paul33]

When John revealed that Jesus rose from the dead, was that scientific truth? or just a myth? or perhaps it was spiritual truth.

That's it! It was spiritual truth, because no one in his right mind would believe that it actually happened. That wouldn't be scientific, and we all know that the Bible doesn't address scientific truth.

Therefore, John, wasn't speaking about scientific truth when he said that everything that has been made was made by the Word. Dumb me.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
How can you say that? God created by the Word, meaning God the Son. The Word created everything that is seen and unseen. There is no contradiction here with Genesis 1.

Paul33, I'm not sure what or who you're disagreeing with. I was referring to Genesis 2, and I agree that everything that is was made by the Word, which is Jesus.

OldRegular did not call gravity an atheistic philosophy.

I did not say he did. I said OldRegular's use of the term "atheistic philosophy" would apply equally well to it. If there's a difference, I'm sure he can point out what it is.

Believing in the laws of nature that God created and enforces is anything but atheistic.

Thank you. I agree. Our main difference seems to be over which natural laws and systems we accept, and not over whether natural laws and systems exist.

Your last sentence is true, but that's not the orientation most scientists are working out of. For them science is and can only be naturalistic because that is all that there is!

Then it is the philosophy of those scientists that you (and I) disagree with. That is not evolution. That is naturalism.

Why do you argue against what you know to be true. Science, as defined by today's naturalistic scientists is atheistic.

Would you also allow liberal Christians to define Christianity for you? If not, why do you let atheistic scientists define science for you? This is the bit of your and OldRegular's posts that I'm still struggling to understand. Why are you willing to give up science to atheists? Why not just reject the naturalism (the idea that natural explanations -- what science investigates -- are all that exist) while continuing to accept what science can reveal about one aspect (not the only aspect) of reality?

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Questions for you if you can answer them.

1. When did gravity come into existence?

2. When did electromagnetism come into existence?

I'd say both these forces were inherent in what God created at the initial moment of creation. They did not emerge and begin functioning until moments after the Big Bang.

By the way, if you can answer the above questions, you will see that they are not atheistic philosophies.

I agree that they are not atheistic philosophies -- no more than evolution is. I think the forces that drive evolution were also inherent in what God made at the initial moment of creation. Just as gravity requires a kind of matter to do anything, so too natural selection requires reproducing organisms to do anything. So, once that matter existed, gravity began to exert its influence, and once reproducing organisms existed, natural selection began to exert its influence. But, both gravity and natural selection only came about because God designed the universe with these capabilities built in.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
Questions for you if you can answer them.

1. When did gravity come into existence?

2. When did electromagnetism come into existence?

I'd say both these forces were inherent in what God created at the initial moment of creation. They did not emerge and begin functioning until moments after the Big Bang.

By the way, if you can answer the above questions, you will see that they are not atheistic philosophies.

I agree that they are not atheistic philosophies -- no more than evolution is. I think the forces that drive evolution were also inherent in what God made at the initial moment of creation. Just as gravity requires a kind of matter to do anything, so too natural selection requires reproducing organisms to do anything. So, once that matter existed, gravity began to exert its influence, and once reproducing organisms existed, natural selection began to exert its influence. But, both gravity and natural selection only came about because God designed the universe with these capabilities built in. </font>[/QUOTE]Gravity and electromagnetism are basic laws of nature created by God. Evolution is an atheistic philosophy as shown in the following paragraphs. It is sad that you cannot see the difference.

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.

What does the evolutionist who is an atheist tell us about the existence of God or for that matter intelligent design as some evolutionists fall back on. The following is an excerpt from a debate between evolutionist William B. Provine and creationist Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University, April 30, 1994. The full debate can be read at:

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm

ON THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ADAPTATIONS, THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER CLEARLY IS VERY SHORT-SIGHTED INDEED. VIRTUALLY ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE EXTINCT. ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH ARE GOING TO BE GONE IN ONE BILLION YEARS, AND THE SAD THING ABOUT THAT IS THAT LIFE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THREE AND ONE-HALF BILLION YEARS ALREADY, SO IT'S ONLY GOT A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. PHIL AND I HAVE ALREADY LIVED MORE THAN HALF OF OUR LIVES. LIFE ON EARTH FACES THE SAME DISMAL PROSPECT.

WHEN YOU DIE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE SURPRISED, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY DEAD. NOW IF FIND MYSELF AWARE AFTER I'M DEAD, I'M GOING TO BE REALLY SURPRISED! BUT AT LEAST I'M GOING TO GO TO HELL, WHERE I WON'T HAVE ALL OF THOSE GRINNING PREACHERS FROM SUNDAY MORNING LISTENING.

LET ME SUMMARIZE MY VIEWS ON WHAT MODERN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY TELLS US LOUD AND CLEAR -- AND THESE ARE BASICALLY DARWIN'S VIEWS. THERE ARE NO GODS, NO PURPOSES, AND NO GOAL-DIRECTED FORCES OF ANY KIND. THERE IS NO LIFE AFTER DEATH. WHEN I DIE, I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT I AM GOING TO BE DEAD. THAT'S THE END OF ME. THERE IS NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS, NO ULTIMATE MEANING IN LIFE, AND NO FREE WILL FOR HUMANS, EITHER. WHAT AN UNINTELLIGIBLE IDEA.

CHRISTIAN HUMANISM HAS A GREAT DEAL GOING FOR IT. IT'S WARM AND KINDLY IN MANY WAYS. THAT'S THE GOOD PART. THE BAD PART IS THAT YOU HAVE TO SUSPEND YOUR RATIONAL MIND. THAT PART IS REALLY NASTY. ATHEISTIC HUMANISM HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF FITTING NATURAL MINDS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD, BUT THE DISADVANTAGE OF VERY LITTLE CULTURAL HERITAGE -- AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM.

SO THE QUESTION IS, CAN ATHEISTIC HUMANISM OFFER US VERY MUCH? SURE. IT CAN GIVE YOU INTELLECTUAL SATISFACTION. I'M A HECK OF A LOT MORE INTELLECTUALLY SATISFIED NOW THAT I DON'T HAVE TO CLING TO THE FAIRY TALE THAT I BELIEVED WHEN I WAS A KID. LIFE MAY HAVE NO ULTIMATE MEANING, BUT I SURE THINK IT CAN HAVE LOTS OF PROXIMATE MEANING. FREE WILL IS NOT HARD TO GIVE UP, BECAUSE IT'S A HORRIBLY DESTRUCTIVE IDEA TUR SOCIETY. FREE WILL IS WHAT WE USE AS AN EXCUSE TO TREAT PEOPLE LIKE PIECES OF CRAP WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG IN OUR SOCIETY. WE SAY TO THE PERSON, "YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG OUT OF YOUR FREE WILL, AND THEREFORE WE HAVE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REVENGE ALL OVER YOUR BEHIND." WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON, TURNING THEM INTO LOUSIER INDIVIDUALS THAN THEY EVER WERE. THIS HORRIBLE SYSTEM IS BASED UPON THIS IDEA OF FREE WILL.

SINCE WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LIVE AFTER WE DIE, THERE IS NO REWARD FOR SUFFERING IN THIS WORLD. YOU LIVE AND YOU DIE. I'VE SEEN BUMPER STICKERS (VERY SEXIST ONES, ACTUALLY) THAT SAY "LIFE'S A BITCH, AND THEN YOU DIE." WELL, WHATEVER LIFE IS, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR YOURSELF OR FOR THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT, YOU HAD BETTER BECOME AN ACTIVIST WHILE YOU'RE STILL ALIVE.

Additional information showing that evolution is an atheist philosophy is presented on the following site:

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_site_summary.html

 

[Charles Meadows]

When John revealed that Jesus rose from the dead, was that scientific truth? or just a myth? or perhaps it was spiritual truth.

It was truth. In this case it is clear (as you well know) that John's intent was to explain that the resurrection in fact happened.

Regarding references to creation - John's intent is not so clear - he discusses the incarnation. He is clearly NOT attempting to make a claim regarding the age of the earth here.