Litural Genesis

Friedrick wrote:
Have you ever studied the six day creation? On what day was vegetation made? (Gen. 1:11) Day 3. On what day was the sun made? (Gen. 1:16) Day 4. I am not a biologist, but I understand that plants cannot survive, at most, several weeks without the sun.

Just yesterday I was chatting with a fellow student. We began talking about evolution and creation. His argument was that evolution is the answer because, "we had to get here somehow." Now, creation and evolution is one thing I do know something about. I explained the evidence that points towards a literal six day creation and alot of evidence that opposes evolution. My friend's last argument was, "yes, but you have only read books by Christian writers." This, I told him, is not the truth and that I probably knew ten times more about the theory of evolution than he. One thing I wish I would have asked him though is this, "How many books have you read on creationism? How much have you studied it? What can you tell me about it?" Most people today argue and debate like children about theories they hardly know the first thing about. The result is a mockery. The site suggested in the last post is an excellent site. (answeringgenesis.com) I also suggest Dr. Kent Hovind's material. (www.drdino.com) He explains dinosours, including how perfectly they fit into the Bible. As a child growing up, his work helped me alot. I encourage you to study these teachings.

I am a Biologist, and don't believe in Evolution any more, especially for [i]scientific[/i] reasons.

It was a challenge by another Christian (he was a medical doctor and I was a new undergraduate, so trying to argue was futile!), that made me realise that I'd been [i]brainwashed[/i] into believing Evolution. After than it was easy to see that the "theory" is barely even worth the title of a hypothesis, (because it fits the evidence so badly) let alone as established fact.

Being a Christian made it easier to accept that Evolution wasn't true, because there was no problem knowing the ultimate Origin of the Universe.

However, the scientific evidence also fits the Biblical account much better than Evolutionary dogma does.

Which, knowing God, is exactly what one would expect!

I did wonder about whether it was a literal six days, but have since read enough scientific and Biblical evidence to convince that it must have been. Except of course that God probably created time, and days too, which raises the question of what is a "day"? But as soon as He divided day from night (if not before) then time must have existed. So the concept of a literal six day creation is still scientifically reasonable - as long as you make the starting assumption that the God described in the Bible really exists.

After all, Evolutionists make the (scientifically much less likely) starting assumption that the Universe somehow came about all by itself!

The Evolution debate has been discussed here quite a bit. Put "Evolution" into search.

Blessings

Jeannette

jordanamo wrote:
There is a strong early church tradition of viewing the Bible Genesis allegorically (Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr-- even Paul makes some inference to it in Gal 4:22-26). I believe this is a fine thing to do. Paul says all Scripture is inspired of God, not that it is historically true.

Do you think Origen et al knew much about modern science? ;-)

In fact, the more discoveries are made about the incredible complexity of living things (especially on the biochemical level) the less likely it is that Evolution could possibly produce them. But Evolution is a tenet of absolute faith (not science) to many scientists, so that they can't even see how increasingly unlikely it is - however many billions of years there may have been!

You are right that Scripture contains allegories, but what's to stop an account being allegorical AND historical?

Genesis is in a historical section of the Bible, so you need very strong evidence why it [i]shouldn't[/i] be taken as historical fact.

Have you ever read any solid historical evidence why the early chapters of Genesis can't possibly be literal? Except of course that God Himself must have [i]told[/i] man how He did things – probably in a simplified form. But that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t just as it says.

Most of what you have read against the historical accuracy of Genesis will be conjecture, smokescreen, rank unbelief and atheism and man's opinions dressed up as "science" when it's nothing of the sort! The onus of disproof is on the sceptics, not on the Bible, and they haven’t succeeded yet!

Of course you can get many allegorical and spiritual lessons from the literal historical accounts, as Paul did with Hagar in Galatians. But that's no reason to think that Hagar never existed. Read the account of her life - doesn't she react just like a real human being? Doesn't the jealousy and spite between her and Sarah, and Abraham's anguish over it all, ring true to real life?

To allegorise the Bible's historical books out of historical existence is like saying that the Crucifixion is an allegory, and never actually happened! (Some theologians do say that of the Resurrection!) And I'm sure you wouldn't do that!

I myself have been coming to such a view of Genesis. I have come to recognize that science over and above contradicts such an interpretation.

Personally, when I held strong to a literal rendering of Genesis, it did not help my faith, but crushed it. For it contradicted logic, there being much evidence to the contrary.

For example, did you know that Earnst Haekel's famous drawings of a series of embryos of different creatures (found in every school textbook) were [i]deliberately forged[/i] by him, in order to give the impression that they were almost identical (thus "evidence" for evolution)?

Did you know that much fossil "evidence" of "missing links" is derived from fragments of bone that could be from almost any animal? One fossil tooth was hailed as coming from an ancient apelike human ancestor, and was later found to be from a pig!

Speaking of pigs, did you know that surgeons often use [i]pig[/i] heart valves for transplant to humans? (A friend's husband recently had open heart surgery, and had pig valve replacements.)

The reason apparently is that, immunologically, pigs are nearer humans than apes are, so there's less danger of our bodies rejecting the valve!

Dear Jordan, it makes me so angry that honest, sincere believers such as yourself can have their faith shaken by such deception and downright lies masquerading as science! To such an extent, in your case (and you aren’t alone) that the pressure of “scientific” unbelief makes you reinterpret the Bible in order not to lose your faith

You need to be more sceptical of what such “experts” believe (not only in science) and would have you believe. Truly Paul speaks of such in Romans 1:

[color=990000] 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.[/color]

Yours in Him

Jeannette

InTheLight wrote:

A poem's truth for example does not come from its historical reality, but from what the message contains in and of itself. God was trying to send a message to the human race, and narrative may have been the only way to describe it to all generations of people from all cultures.

God does not need a poem to communicate truth about man and Himself. The history of mankind and how God has dealt with man and sin is vitally important and provides the only real answers to the deep questions of life that we all ask. Questions like why does the universe exist? Why does man hold such a unique place in the universe? How is it that man can rise to such heights of achievement at times and yet fall to such depths of depravity at other times? If Genesis is not true history we have no real answers to these questions.

The Triune God is the personal God who is there and He has spoken. He has left a record of His purpose in creation, man's hinderance of that purpose, and God's merciful recovery of what was lost. Remove Genesis from the historic record and you're left with no real answers.

In Christ,

Ron

deltadom wrote:

If someone cannot believe that creation was spoken into being in seven days, then how can they believe any of the other miracles , to me it shines light on people's faith more than anything else. If they are Christian I would question their faith.

What many Christians also fail to realise is that there are demonic strongholds of [i]thought[/i] in human societies and cultures, or even in denominations. If we have been brought up in such a culture we often have difficulty discerning them.

The philosophy behind Evolution is one of these strongholds, and blinds many - even Christians. I shall never forget the difference when the Lord helped me to see that I'd been brainwashed! How could I, as a science student, have possibly believed, what was now so obviously an unscientific "theory"? The man Jesus had to touch a second time to heal his sight fully couldn't have been more thrilled! He saw men "as trees walking" Evolutionists see men "as apes walking"!

We don't have to be bound with the cords of our culture - the Lord sets us free, in every way: spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and often physically too (though complete physical healing has to wait till we get our new bodies in the resurrection!)

2Corinthians 10
[color=990000]3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not 1carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 [i][b]casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ[/b][/i][/color]

The word "arguments", (KJV "imaginations") has more the meaning of "reasonings":

Blessings

Jeannette

jordanamo wrote:

Do you think Origen et al knew much about modern science?

Hello Jeanette.

No, they didn't, but if they did I'm sure if they did they'd hold an even more allegorical view of Genesis!

For example, did you know that Earnst Haekel's famous drawings of a series of embryos of different creatures (found in every school textbook) were deliberately forged by him, in order to give the impression that they were almost identical (thus "evidence" for evolution)?

Yes, but that has long been debunked and is not a proper criticism of the evolutionary theory itself.

I mentioned the complexities of Biochemistry, and new discoveries of even more complex and finely tuned systems are being made all the time. To imagine that they could have come about by chance is like saying that a factory producing a range of complex chemicals in a precise order, and able to produce other chemicals that need that order to be able to exist, could have built itself from a pile of bricks and other raw materials!

I do not really want to debate the theory of evolution by common descent as I only have a cursory understanding of the subject. But I just want to affirm that faith in God is not based upon a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis.

Jordan

As has been said, where does it end? Do you doubt the resurrection because its scientifically unlikely? (Actually resurrection [i]is[/i] scientifically unlikely - for the same reason that Evolution is unlikely!)

Geological and other evidence in recent years increasingly support the Genesis account - even from the research of sceptics, although they would never admit it!

For example the Flood:

Most fossils, worldwide, show evidence of being quickly buried in massive amounts of sediment that was almost certaily deposited by water.

A boat of the dimensions of Noah's Ark would suit its purpose incredibly well. There would have been plenty of room for all the creatures (at least if only eggs or young individuals of a few kinds of larger dinosaurs were taken). Remember that animals wouldn't have had time to diversify all that much from the original created "kinds", (roughly corresponding to present day genera, or larger groupings?) so there would have been far fewer species than we have today.

The Ark must also have been an amazingly stable structure that would have been able to stand up to huge storm conditions. Again, recent tests on a scale model (the original dimensions were more like that of an ocean liner) of such a boat have shown that it would indeed have had the required stability, and proved uncapsizable under the most extreme test conditions.

These days, there is such a weight of real science, as opposed to conjecture, that fits the Genesis account extremely well. Evolution just can't compete.

Except that it is a stronghold, as I said. Otherwise you would be willing to consider the evidence more closely. Even as a layman you could get enough understanding of the subject to see some of the fallacies and virtual scientific [i]impossiblity[/i] of Evolution.

Doesn't your reluctance to do so tell you anything? That was what started me doubting Evolution - my own reaction when belief in it was challenged. Before that it had never occurred to me to doubt it, or that it might possibly be incompatible with my faith.

I'm glad it hasn't shaken your faith, but it's certainly distorted your understanding of the Bible. Genesis is a [b]historical[/b], not poetic, account, as others have also shown.

in Him, the Author and finished of our faith, who was there at the Beginning.

Jeannette

Jeannette

Compton said

Instead, we find only stasis. Over and over again, perfect unvarying stasis. Have you ever seen the Triceratops in the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburg? It's just like the one in the Natural History Museum in New York, the Smithsonian in DC and the Peabody Museum in New Haven CT. Imagine that...each museum has a find of the exact same random mutation!

The real bones are too heavy for display - the bones are die cast (I don't know if that's the proper terminology) and the skeletons on display are made of lighter materials.

The museums, no doubt, cast only the best fossils for their shows... thus, many museums exhibit reproductions of one skeleton in pristine condition.

As for this "flux" you're speaking of, type "triceratops" into wikipedia and examine the various phenotypes (size, weight, number of horns, some even had multiple spikes along the ridge of head armor) of this magnificent beast - they did change over time.

While you're at it, type in "rhinoceros" and compare the two creatures. One's a reptile, the other a mammel, but these "tanks on four legs" share many similarities in skeletal structure (called "evolutionary convergence").